(via princessmonsanto)
Posts tagged "Monsanto"
-
Source dhpt
-
Blatant Corruption Exposed As EU Blocks France’s Ban On Monsanto’s GMO Maize
Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
May 24, 2012
Just after France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.
That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing and startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.
One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?
It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.
Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA was a leading employee of Monsanto?
-
New EO To Eliminate GMO Trade Barriers
Barbara H. Peterson
The United States, inc., in collusion with the biotech industry, which is headed by none other than Monsanto et. al., is successfully conducting a food war with the nations around it.
The USDA and Monsanto, using international Free Trade agreements as a club, have a penchant for attempting to force other countries under threat of penalty for creating a barrier to free trade, into accepting the unacceptable at their borders, in the form of genetically modified products (GMOs). And now we have the Executive Order on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, another tool that can be used to push GMOs worldwide.
On May 1, 2012, the Executive Order on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation was signed:
Today, President Obama has built on Executive Order 13563 by signing a historic Executive Order on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The new Executive Order will promote American exports, economic growth, and job creation by helping to eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences between the United States and other countries and by making sure that we do not create new ones.
From the Trenches reported the following:
Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscation laws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial.
Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International law for the United States
Possible gun control measures are one disturbing aspect of this, but there is another angle here that needs to be addressed. This newest E.O. is designed to promote the goals of Executive Order 13563, which affirmed Executive Order 12866, which established the Regulatory Working Group. One of these goals is to examine strategies for developing international regulatory cooperation particularly in emerging technology areas:
Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(iii) examine, among other things:
(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;
Executive Order on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
Such coordination requires
Eliminat[ing] unnecessary regulatory differences between the United States and other countries and by making sure that we do not create new ones.
So, just what “unnecessary regulatory differences” might they be looking to eliminate, or harmonize? You guessed it – the supposed “barriers to trade” that create “unnecessary obstacles” for the biotech industry, because all regulations must be based upon “sound science.”
Over the past year, the Federal Government has been working to implement President Obama’s directions for a 21st-century regulatory system, which he described in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” Executive Order 13563 requires U.S. regulators, to the extent permitted by law, to select approaches that maximize net benefits; choose the least burdensome alternative; increase public participation in the rulemaking process; design rules that are simpler and more flexible, and that provide freedom of choice; and base regulations on sound science. Executive Order 13563 also calls for an ambitious, government-wide “lookback” at existing rules, with the central goal of eliminating outdated requirements and unjustified costs.
This is the same “sound science” that declares GMOs and glyphosate to be safe in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Most of this evidence comes from other countries that have done the research and determined that they do not want GMOs. As it stands now, the U.S. cries fowl whenever another country puts up a “barrier to trade” by refusing GMO imports due to this evidence and public outcry.
The newly signed E.O. paves the way for the USDA/Monsanto to bash resistance to biotech infiltration and eliminate or harmonize international regulations to smooth the way for the USDA/Monsanto to have free reign in forcing “emerging technology” down the throats of other nations. This is another step in the total takeover of the planet by biotech interests.
If you are the stronger party, the best way to win is to agree to agree – to coexist. By signing this E.O., Obama has put into play another piece of the world domination puzzle executed by globalist interests looking to spread GMOs unabated, along with their accompanying patents and death grip on farmers worldwide.
Technical regulations and product standards may vary from country to country. Having many different regulations and standards makes life difficult for producers and exporters. If regulations are set arbitrarily, they could be used as an excuse for protectionism.
All those pesky regulations and sticky red tape that stand as a barrier to trading GMOs worldwide need to be eliminated, and one standard set by international law, to hell with individual concerns.
According to Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
…the order makes clear that in eliminating such differences, we will respect domestic law and will not compromise U.S. priorities and prerogatives. Even while insisting on those priorities and prerogatives, we can eliminate pointless red tape. Today’s global economy relies on supply chains that cross national borders (sometimes more than once), and different regulatory requirements in different countries can significantly increase costs for companies doing business abroad.
All of this “red tape” that is spoken of that needs to be “eliminated” is none other than the same type of red tape and barrier to “emerging technology” that was eliminated when GMOs were declared to be “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) by the USDA, and force-fed to the public under stealth because no labeling is required. Can we spell Codex Alimentarius – full scale harmonization of international food standards with GMOs as the food of choice? We are one step closer to full implementation.
©2012 Barbara H. Peterson
-
USDA Knew Of Monsanto GM Alfalfa Contamination In 2005
Letter Shows Monsanto Planted GMOs Before USDA Approval
By Cassandra Anderson & Anthony Gucciardi
Did Monsanto actually plant genetically modified alfalfa before it was deregulated by the USDA? There is some shocking evidence that, until recently, was withheld from the public showing that Monsanto’s genetically altered alfalfa may have been set free in 2003 — a full two years or more before it was deregulated in 2005. In a letter, obtained by NaturalSociety with permission to post for public viewing, it becomes clear that the USDA may have turned a blind eye to the entire situation, allowing widespread GMO contamination of GMO-free crops.
Amazingly, the letter actually proves that the USDA was fully aware of the situation. In order to fully understand the intricate details of this event, it is first important to understand a few key factors regarding alfalfa and its connection to the entire food supply.
Alfalfa is a perennial plant that grows for more than 2 years and may not need to be replanted each year like annuals. Because it is a perennial plant, it is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. Interestingly, the modified alfalfa — created by Monsanto in partner with a group known as Forage Genetics — was the first perennial plant to be deregulated for open planting by the USDA. But did Monsanto unleash the plant before this occurred?
This is very serious because it is only a matter of time before alfalfa across America could be corrupted with Monsanto’s patented genetically modified trait. Organic meat and dairy could be tainted when animals are fed the modified alfalfa as well, threatening the very integrity of the organic food supply. What’s more, the contamination of natural alfalfa could be nearly impossible — if not entirely impossible — to remedy, so it could actually fracture the genetic stability of the entire crop on a global scale.
Shocking Letter Reveals Monsanto’s Contamination Dates Back 2 Years Before Deregulation
A letter from Cal/West Seeds shows that evidence of contamination was withheld and the USDA turned a blind eye to proof of contamination in 2005 which shows it was planted at least two years before it was initially deregulated in 2005. As you can see for yourself, the official letter states:
We first discovered the unintended presence of the Roundup Ready gene in our conventional alfalfa seeds in 2005. It was identified in one of our foundation seed production lots grown in California. We tested the foundation seed lot priot to shipping it to a producer who intended to plant it for organic seed production.
In another telling segment, the author writes:
We detected the presence of the … Roundup Ready gene in both our foundation seed and certified seed prior to deregulation.
In order to protect the safety of the individual, some further contents cannot be divulged. Remember in the past, those who have stood up against Monsanto have received anonymous death threats — in one case, the threats were directed towards a mother and her children.
This video documents the timeline of events that led to the deregulation of Monsanto & Forage Genetics’ GMO alfalfa that is contaminating natural alfalfa. As the video explains, the lawyers representing the farmers against Monsanto failed to hold an evidentiary hearing so the injunction (ban) against planting GMO alfalfa was removed and the case was sent back to the lower district court. The lawyers pursued no further action on this case.
Contamination levels are still very low, but will undoubtedly increase over time with unexpected results (like superweeds), so stopping the further planting of GM plants like alfalfa is of high concern. Furthermore, it would set a precedent for banning other GMO perennial plants as well — a monumental move in the legislative fight against GMOs. This letter, compounded with the other evidence presented in this article, is paramount in displaying just how serious of an issue genetic contamination is. What’s more, the USDA appears to have known the entire time. It’s time to spread the word.
Additional Sources:
Alfalfa Timeline of Events
2010 Final Environmental Impact StatementThis article first appeared on NaturalSociety.com. Please visit them for breaking natural health news.
-
Monsanto Products To Avoid And Boycott Monsanto Products To Wear, Use
By Michael Brownstein
Project Agent OrangeDuring the American War on Viet Nam, we boycotted Dow Chemical, forcing it to change many of its ways of doing business. Like the present day Dow, Monsanto has products that are integrated into much that we use, but we can avoid some of those items with a conscious boycott.
Ethical Investing has posted a list of specific products to boycott, along with your avoidance of most processed foods since they contain genetically modified organisms.
And, check out these Boycott Monsanto products at Cafe Press.
Monsanto Products to Avoid
Products to Avoid Further Information Alternatives Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal)
Aspartame Formaldehyde Poisoning & Health Destruction Healthier Sweetener Resource List
Roundup Herbicide Monsanto’s Toxic Roundup &
Scientists Issue Urgent Warning Lawn & Garden Care Solutions (scroll down)
Genetically Engineered Soy & Canola Products & Ingredients (Roundup Treated)
Genetically-Engineered Frankenfoods &
Scientists Issue Urgent Warning Certified Organic Foods rBGH Dairy rBGH (Posilac) — Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer List of non rBGH Dairy
& Check Local Health Food Store for Organic Dairy Ambien
Insomnia Medication Zolpidem Warning Label Information
Natural Alternatives Where Possible: HealthWorld Solutions, Ayurvedic Info & Meditation or YogaClasses.
If you have a Facebook account, you can also sign a petition demanding justice and compensation for the victims of Agent Orange.
Also see the website, Monsanto Boycott and see OCA’s Boycott Kellogg’s page for information on Monsanto’s genetically modified sugar.
Spread the word, by sporting a Boycott Monsanto magnet on your car, or by wearing a boycott shirt, hoodie, ipod cover, bag and much more.
-
The Family Farm Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America
Added by louistheguy on April 28, 2012.
The Economic Collapse
An entire way of life is rapidly dying right in front of our eyes. The family farm is being systematically wiped out of existence in America, and big agribusiness and the federal government both have blood all over their hands. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of farms in the United States has fallen from about 6.8 million in 1935 to only about 2 million today. That doesn’t mean that there is less farming going on. U.S. farms are producing more than ever. But what it does mean is that farming is increasingly becoming dominated by the big boys. The rules of the game have been tilted in favor of big agribusiness so dramatically that most small farmers find that they simply cannot compete anymore. Back in 1900, about 39 percent of the U.S. population worked on farms.
At this point, only about 2 percent of all Americans now live on farms. Big agribusiness, the food processing conglomerates, and big seed companies such as Monsanto completely dominate the industry. Unless something dramatic is done, the family farm is going to continue to be wiped out of existence. Unfortunately, it does not look like things are going to turn around any time soon.
The way that the farming industry is structured today, it is simply not economically feasible to operate a small family farm. According to Farm Aid, every week approximately 330 farmers leave their land for good.
Many old timers are trying to hang on for as long as they can. A very large percentage of family farmers are in their fifties, sixties or seventies at this point.
Today, only about 6 percent of all farmers are under the age of 35.
Most young people these days are not too eager to choose farming as a career. A lot of young adults that grew up on family farms have decided that investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business that requires you to work 12 hours or more per day most of the year for very meager wages is simply not worth it.
In recent years, many family farmers have been forced to find second jobs in order to support their families. Many farm families are constantly on the verge of financial ruin. It is a really tough life for many of them.
Sadly, less than 25 percent of all farms in America bring in gross revenues in excess of $50,000. The following comes from the EPA website….
It has been estimated that living expenses for the average farm family exceed $47,000 per year. Clearly, many farms that meet the U.S. Census’ definition would not produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000.
On top of everything else, the federal government and many state governments just keep endlessly piling more rules and regulations on to the backs of farmers.
Big agribusiness has the resources to deal with all of these regulations fairly well, but most family farms do not.
With each passing year, the farming industry becomes even more centralized. If current trends continue, big agribusiness will eventually control nearly all of it. The following is from the EPA website….
By 1997, a mere 46,000 of the two million farms in this country accounted for 50% of sales of agricultural products (USDA, 1997 Census of Agriculture data). That number was down from almost 62,000 in 1992.
In certain industries the amount of consolidation has been absolutely stunning. For example, between 1970 and today the United States has lost 88 percent of its dairy farms.
Another factor that is shaping the farming business is the incredible power that the giant food processing conglomerates have accumulated.
Today, there are 10 corporations that control most of the things that Americans eat and drink on a daily basis. If you doubt this, just check out this chart.
The giant food processing conglomerates have a massive amount of influence over how food is grown in the United States today. Small farmers that try to go against the tide often have a very rough go of it.
That is also true when it comes to seeds.
For example, approximately 80 percent of all corn grown in the United States is grown using seeds that have been genetically modified by Monsanto.
If you want to try to defy companies such as Monsanto, you are playing a very dangerous game. The predatory business practices of Monsanto have been well documented. Monsanto has taken countless numbers of farmers to court, and they are absolutely ruthless.
Plus, it certainly does not help that there is a constant revolving door between Monsanto and federal government agencies. If you doubt this, just check out the chart about Monsanto on this page.
Amazingly, in spite of all this there are still some small farmers that are able to overcome all of these obstacles and run successful businesses.
But that is where the federal government comes in.
In recent years, the federal government has become absolutely obsessed with going after small farmers.
For example, a recent Food Freedom News article detailed what the feds have been doing to Randy and Karen Sowers. They were keeping their cash deposits under $10,000 so that they would not have to fill out a bunch of paperwork, and the federal government came down on them like a hurricane….
“Structuring,” explains Overlawyered.com, “is the federal criminal offense of splitting up bank deposits so as to keep them under a threshold such as $10,000 above which banks have to report transactions to the government.”
While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.
Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.
When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor’s money.
Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.
At many other small farms across America, the feds have conducted military-style raids at the crack of dawn over the smallest infractions.
Some examples of this were detailed in a documentary entitled “Farmaggedon“. The following is a short trailer for that film….
The sad truth is that the federal government has been using your tax money to go after small farmers in absolutely vicious ways.
For example, the feds raided one Amish farm at 5 AM one morning.
So what was the big crime that the feds were so concerned about?
Well, the Amish farm was selling raw milk.
Oh the horror!
The feds seem content to leave big agribusiness pretty much alone, but they are constantly going after small farms in hundreds of different ways.
Did you know that the Department of Labor is instituting new regulations that will ban children from doing many kinds of farm chores?
Just another way to kill off the family farm in America.
America is changing, and not for the better.
Just like the middle class, the family farm is heading for extinction.
Eventually, the big corporations and the federal government will have near total control over food production in America.
-
Another Way To Kill US Farmers: Seize Their Bank Accounts On Phony Charges
04-23-2012 • Rady Ananda Food Freedom News
Monsanto’s Food and Drug Administration can’t close down small dairies and private food clubs fast enough, bursting on the scene with guns drawn as if the criminalized right to contract for natural foods we’ve consumed for millennia deserves SWAT attention.
Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.
“The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News. The Sowers own and run South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland.
Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your-fucking-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.
Reported by Leon Felkins -
Woman Receives Anonymous Threats After Opposing Monsanto
Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
April 23, 2012
After losing a 3-day old daughter to kidney failure, a woman named Sofia Gatica from Argentina made a decision to spearhead an anti-Monsanto movement with other mothers of sick children. Monsanto is a biotechnology, agrochemical company which has been polluting the environment and human health with herbicides, pesticides, genetically modified foods, and other substances for decades. Numerous cases have been brought against Monsanto for biological damage and even death — such is the recent case in which farmers say the biotech giant’s creations spawned ‘devastating birth defects‘.
Near where Gatica lives, there are soybean fields covering the land where farmers spray loads of chemicals on the crops. The primary weed killer used on the fields is the one and only Roundup, the most popular herbicide used by farmers which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. Gatica didn’t initially connect the chemical exposure to her baby’s death until she noticed that many of her friends and neighbors were also experiencing health problems.
“I started seeing children with mouth covers, mothers with scarves wrapped around their heads to cover their baldness, due to chemotherapy…There are soybeans to the north, to the south, and to the east, and when they spray, they spray over the people because there’s no distance,” Gatica said to a Grist reporter.
In fact, researchers found that people in her area had three to four agricultural chemicals in their blood, including one chemical, endosulfan, which is banned in over 80 countries. The researchers also found that 33 percent of the residents were struck with cancer. In other previous German findings, Monsanto’s Roundup was present in all urine samples tested at an amount of 5 to 20-fold the established limit for drinking water, showing how prevalent these chemicals really are.
In retaliation to Monsanto and their highly used chemical creations, Gatica worked to create an international movement against Monsanto with other activists. A few years ago, after co-founding a group called Mothers of Ituzaingó, she and her group initiated the first epidemiological study of the area which found high rates of neurological and respiratory disease, birth defects, infant mortality, and cancer rates more than 40 times the national average. She then continued to find researchers to study the links between pesticides, herbicides, and health problems, while engaging in protests voicing concerns over the issues.
“We blockaded the spraying machines. We would get into the fields to block them. We carried out protests at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Health Ministry. We took sick people to the ministry,” she said.
Over the course of a few years, mandatory buffer zones between aerial spraying and neighborhoods has been put in place thanks to the activist movement. In addition, Argentina’s Supreme Court decided that agrochemicals could not be sprayed near living areas.
However, while Gatica and other activists successfully created change, the process wasn’t necessarily easy. In fact, there were even direct threats.
“Somebody came inside my house with a weapon. I was told not to ‘screw around with the soybeans.’ I would get phone calls where I’d be told that I would only have two children the next day,” she said. “I had the police investigate this, but I was told that the file was secret,” she added after being questioned as to whether she ever found out who made the personal attacks.
Interestingly enough, previous research found that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup exhibits direct toxicity to human cells, effectively killing them off even at low doses. The toxicity and negative impact on young children is even greater, and is most detrimental to infants or unborn babies. Although Gatica started alone and was even directly threatened, she rose above these complications and effectively ignited change – she will not be the last.
-
Bill Gates And 47,500 Cases Of Paralysis
By Joe Samuel
Food Freedom NewsIn India, Monsanto hired Bollywood actors to promote genetically engineered cotton seed to illiterate farmers. Nana Petakar became a brand ambassador for Monsanto. The advertising has been called “aggressive, unscrupulous and false.”
Bill Gates, heavily invested in Monsanto’s GMOs as well as in vaccines, hired the most beloved of Indian actors, Amitabh Bachchan, to promote the oral polio vaccine.
Here is one example of the ads Bachchan created. Here is Bachchan and use of Bollywood itself to promote the vaccines, and here is another ad, in which Bachchan employes his acting skills.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation says:
“Worldwide efforts in the last two decades have reduced the number of polio cases by 99 percent. Until we reach eradication, however, we are working with governments and all partners in the polio effort to ensure no child is at risk of either contracting or transmitting this crippling disease.”
Monsanto used Bollywood actors and succeeded in selling India’s farmers Bt cotton seeds. Profits for Monsanto rose. When yields were less than promised, farmers incurred massive debt, leading many to suicide, in what is considered “the worst-ever recorded wave of suicides of this kind in human history.” To date, the number of suicides has surpassed 250,000.
P. Sainath details this neoliberal terrorism:
“With giant seed companies displacing cheap hybrids and far cheaper and hardier traditional varieties with their own products, a cotton farmer in Monsanto’s net would be paying far more for seed than he or she ever dreamed they would. Local varieties and hybrids were squeezed out with enthusiastic state support. In 1991, you could buy a kilogram of local seed for as little as Rs.7 or Rs.9 in today’s worst affected region of Vidarbha. By 2003, you would pay Rs.350 — ($7) — for a bag with 450 grams of hybrid seed. By 2004, Monsanto’s partners in India were marketing a bag of 450 grams of Bt cotton seed for between Rs.1,650 and Rs.1,800 ($33 to $36).”
Long after it was apparent that Monsanto was having a lethal impact on India, Bill Gates who says he wants to help the poor in India, made a huge investment in Monsanto. Does Gates care that he invested in a company that has left poor children of India without their fathers and lost them their land they had lived on?
How is Gates’ other investment – vaccines – faring? Mimicking Monsanto’s PR, Gates used Bollywood actors to strongly promote his vaccine campaign to ‘eradicate polio’ across India. Vaccines ware given to Indian children. Have they brought health?
From “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on” by Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel at Medical Ethics http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html:
“In 2011 there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis]. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Through this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”
The Oral Polio Vaccines were given to Indian children. The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio.
“In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the ‘principal if not sole cause’ of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961 [44]. (The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal excretion of the virus continues [45].) In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine [36]. Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for about eight cases of polio every year [46]. However, an independent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641 reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine. These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (Figure 3) [47,48]. Public outrage at these tragedies became the impetus for removing the oral polio vaccine from immunization schedules [36:568;37;38].”
Did Gates not know the OPV had been dropped in the US as he suggested he wanted to bring the same good health to third world countries as Western countries enjoyed? If he did not know, is he pushing vaccines on the world’s children without such basic and truly critical information?
Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi address the question of eradication:
“The charade about polio eradication and the great savings it will bring has persisted to date. It is a paradox that while the director general of WHO, Margret Chan, and Bill Gates are trying to muster support for polio eradication (22) it has been known to the scientific community, for over 10 years, that eradication of polio is impossible. This is because in 2002 scientists had synthesised a chemical called poliovirus in a test-tube with the empirical formula C332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196P7, 501S2,340. It has been demonstrated that by positioning the atoms in sequence, a particle can emerge with all the properties required for its proliferation and survival in nature (23, 24).” [Emphasis added.]
“Wimmer writes that the test-tube synthesis of poliovirus has wiped out any possibility of eradicating poliovirus in the future. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro. Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus. Indeed the 18-year-old global eradication campaign for polioviruses will have to be continued in some format forever. The long promised ‘infinite’ monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved (24). The attraction that ‘eradication’ has for policy makers will vanish once this truth is widely known.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is apparently out of touch with what the scientific community has known for 10 years, as its website’s page on polio indicates”2011 Annual Letter from Bill Gates: Ending Polio
Aid for the poorest has already achieved a lot. For example, because of donors’ generosity, we are on the threshold of ending polio once and for all.
And then the Foundation continues about how terrible polio is and how many children it paralyzed and killed.
Polio is a terrible disease that kills many and paralyzes others. Fifty years ago it was widespread around the world. When you talk to people who remember polio in the United States, they’ll tell you about the fear and panic during an outbreak and describe grim hospital wards full of children in iron lungs that maintained their breathing. At its peak in the United States in 1952, polio paralyzed or killed more than 24,000 people.
But in 2011 alone, the Bill and Melinda Gates’ polio vaccine campaign in India caused 47,500 cases of paralysis and death.
From Vashisht and Puliyel:
“It has been reported in the Lancet that the incidence of AFP, especially non-polio AFP has increased exponentially in India after a high potency polio vaccine was introduced (25). Grassly and colleagues suggested, at that time, that the increase in AFP was the result of a deliberate effort to intensify surveillance and reporting in India (26). The National Polio Surveillance Programme maintained that the increased numbers were due to reporting of mild weakness, presumably weakness of little consequence (27).
“However in 2005, a fifth of the cases of non-polio AFP in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) were followed up after 60 days. 35.2% were found to have residual paralysis and 8.5% had died (making the total of residual paralysis or death – 43.7%) (28). Sathyamala examined data from the following year and showed that children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection (27).
“Data from India on polio control over 10 years, available from the National Polio Surveillance Project, has now been compiled and made available online for it to be scrutinised by epidemiologists and statisticians (29). This shows that the non-polio AFP rate increases in proportion to the number of polio vaccines doses received in each area.
“Nationally, the non-polio AFP rate is now 12 times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month, the non-polio AFP rate is 25- and 35-fold higher than the international norms. The relationship of the non-polio AFP rate is curvilinear with a more steep increase beyond six doses of OPV in one year. The non-polio AFP rate during the year best correlates to the cumulative doses received in the previous three years. Association (R2) of the non-polio AFP rate with OPV doses received in 2009 was 41.9%.
“Adding up doses received from 2007 increased the association (R2 = 55.6% p < 0.001) (30). Population density did not show any association with the non-polio AFP rate, although others have suggested that it is related to polio AFP (31). The international incidence of non-polio AFP is said to be 1 to 2/100,000 in the populations under 15 (32, 33). The benchmark of good surveillance is the ability to detect one case of AFP per 100,000 children even in the absence of polio (34).
“In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralysed in the year, over and above the standard 2/100,000 non-polio AFP that is generally accepted as the norm. (32-33). [Emphasis added.]
“It is sad that, even after meticulous surveillance, this large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP. [Emphasis added.]
“These findings point to the need for a critical appraisal to find the factors contributing to the increase in non-polio AFP with increase in OPV doses – perhaps looking at the influence of strain shifts of entero-pathogens induced by the vaccine given practically once every month.
“From India’s perspective the exercise has been extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is apparently out of touch with what is known about the impossibility of eradicating polio, but it is not out of touch with the money involved.
“…. the last 1 percent remains a true danger. Eradication is not guaranteed. It requires campaigns to give polio vaccine to all children under 5 in poor countries, at a cost of almost $1 billion per year. We have to be aggressive about continuing these campaigns until we succeed in eradicating that last 1 percent.
“Therefore, funding is critical to success. Organizations such as Rotary International http://www.rotary.org and the governments of India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all major contributors to the polio campaign. Our foundation gives about $200 million each year. But the campaign still faces a 2011-12 funding gap of $720 million. If eradication fails because of a lack of generosity on the part of donor countries it would be tragic. We are so close, but we have to finish the last leg of the journey. We need to bring the cases down to zero, maintain careful surveillance to ensure the virus is truly gone, and keep defenses up with polio vaccines until we’ve confirmed success.”
The Foundation’s page on polio begins with urging eradication which is known to not be possible, but it ends with wanting money. Like Monsanto’s Bt seeds which were an agricultural and financial disaster for India’s farmers, Gate’s polio vaccine campaign has been the same – a public health and financial disaster for India.
We have seen how polio, that was not a priority for public health in India, was made the target for attempted eradication with a token donation of $ 0.02 billion. The Government of India finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.
Did Monsanto stop their sale of Bt cotton seeds after it became apparent that farmers were being destroyed by overwhelming debt, the poor yields of the seeds and their inability to save seeds?
Has anyone from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation rushed to India to suspend their polio vaccines until crucial questions can be answered about their causingNPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis] and deaths?
Is the Foundation addressing the lack of vaccine safety? Vaccine safety may be a sensitive subject as Mr. Gates is on record in saying that “people who engage in anti-vaccine efforts [those questioning the safety of vaccines] kill children.”
And yet Mr. Gates’ polio campaign has been documented to have paralyzed 47,5000 children. Puliyel says that “children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection (27).”
Bill Gates gives no figures or any details to back up his claim that people skeptical of vaccines are killing children, but he referred to parents didn’t give their children the pertussis vaccine and measles vaccines and children dying. However, Mr. Gates may not be aware that teens in Canada vaccinated for measles have come down with measles in greater numbers than the unvaccinated and vaccinated children who are developing pertussis (whooping cough).
From Investigative News Source:
· For pertussis cases in which vaccination histories are known, between 44 and 83 percent were of people who had been immunized, according to data from nine California counties with high infection rates. In San Diego County, more than two thirds of the people in this group were up to date on their immunizations.
· Health officials in Ohio and Texas, two states experiencing whooping cough outbreaks, report that of all cases, 75 and 67.5 percent respectively, reported having received a pertussis vaccination.
· Today, the rate of disease in some California counties is as high as 139 per 100,000, rivaling rates before vaccines were developed.· Public officials around the world rely heavily on two groups of pertussis experts when setting vaccine policy relating to the disease. Both groups, and many of their members, receive money from the two leading manufacturers of pertussis vaccine.
· Dr. Fritz Mooi, a well-known Dutch scientist who has been studying mutations of the pertussis bacteria for 15 years, said a more virulent strain of bacteria is contributing to outbreaks.
The polio vaccine uses a synthetic virus which has created a more virulent strain. Does the pertussis vaccine also use a synthetic virus?
The WHO, which is working with Mr. Gates through GAVI, classifies the paralysis occurring in India as non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). Perhaps Bill Gates might consider that while Monsanto’s Bollywood PR worked to sell Bt seeds and Gates’ Bollywood PR worked to push his polio vaccines, no Monsanto PR changes the reality of the farmers’ suicides. And ‘relabeling’ paralysis after the vaccines were given does not change the facts. Paralysis is paralysis to the child who can no longer walk. Death is death to the parents who have lost a child.
Mr. Gates intends to vaccinate every child in the world. He has not been slowed in that commitment despite the mass numbers of death and paralysis of children in India. Not pausing from and not even investigating the disaster he has already caused, how many more children will Mr. Gates “help”?
-
The World According To Monsanto
-
APEX PREDATOR
ALCOHOL,DRUGS,AND POISON
A good cup of strong coffee is kind of my thing-one of the simple uncomplicated pleasures easy to avail myself of and produces no negative impact on any around me.Never been involved in a wreck because I drank too much coffee, or beat and abused a woman or child, committed a crime, or did without a single thing because I drink coffee.
Not interested in alcohol or any form of drugs-I would rather eat my shoe than indulge them.
Tried alcohol a little when I was younger and crazier but learned that lesson early on-a lesson that should have been unnecessary with the examples my father provided.
Got drunk once with the crew I worked with-made fools of ourselves as drunks are inclined to do and paid the price the next day at work.
Mid summer and hot, all of us suffering hangovers as saws screamed and hammers banged away-one of the “benefits” of being stupid-part of the lingering “fun” of party time-a reminder of that “good time” we had the
night before.I remember looking around at the others and seeing how they were also struggling and thinking to myself that we had actually paid hard earned money to be in the condition we found ourselves-that only served to compound the misery and the perception of my, if not our, ignorance.
Made a decision then never to touch alcohol again. Funny thing is in my limited participation I never even liked the taste.
There may be other areas I need to work on but related to this aspect believe I am a better person than if I had continued-that in itself is reason, reward enough.
I talked to one of those fellow revelers not long ago and he said he had just recently quit drinking. I applauded his decision and asked what led to it- he responded it was partly mercenary in nature, that he had calculated the cost
of multiple twelve packs per week and extrapolated that figure over the months and years.Said he was not only shocked, but shamed by the amount in thinking how much better a purpose it would have served being directed towards his family. What a better father and husband he could have been.
Curious thing though about the mindset regarding alcohol-at times someone will ask me if I want a beer or a drink-when I decline there is a subtle change in expression, a different look in the eyes-sometimes the question will be asked if I have a “problem” with alcohol?
My response is always Yes I do-I don’t like it, what it does, or even the taste of it.
That seems to suffice-some probably assume that means I am a recovering alcoholic rather than just accepting what I’ve said at face value-that’s fine with me-I’m not the one who will be suffering hangover episodes or
spending money to have the “fun” that leads to them.I find it curious as well that beverages containing alcohol, at least in this country, come with warnings of associated risks-to me this pretty much says you’re about to introduce a poison into your body and yet people
do anyway.Makes me wonder too if any poison would be consumed depending on how it is packaged and marketed-kind of seems to be the way of it when you look around.
Ammonia, an ingredient in over the counter meat products at the market- dyes and “preservatives” in canned goods, fruit harvested green and then gassed to force it to ripen-vegetables layered with pesticides-”medication” with a list of contraindications as long as your arm-eggs laid by chickens liberally dosed with hormones and speed-eggs that often have that dark yolk people go on about as sign of quality when the truth is more mundane, that the color is the result of additives such as ground up marigold added to the chicken feed to produce the coveted dark yolk color and sense of well being-bread made from flour that has been bleached and stripped of nutrients then to be “enriched” and marketed as wholesome and packed with nutrients.
The end result is that we are all suffering a chemically induced hangover we may not even be aware of-a hangover that impacts everything we do and the very core of our being.
In addition I see that Dow Chemical in it’s infinite desire to serve mankind wants to resurrect a major component of Agent Orange in what is being referred to as Agent Orange Corn. Insanity fueled corporate gluttony and greed-accompanied by the governments approval.
I read somewhere once that modern humanity is exposed to something like fifty thousand chemical combinations a day-that ought to scare the hell out of everyone-and ought to make people think about willfully ingesting any in the pursuit of a good time.
Paying to poison ourselves-the only species capable of that kind of logic- and in doing so devouring ourselves and too often our children and those we care the most about.
Gives new meaning to the term apex predator doesn’t it?
foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/monsantos-agent…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
-
Millions Against Monsanto: The Food Fight Of Our Lives
By Ronnie Cummins
AlterNetFor nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American agriculture, aided and abetted by indentured politicians and regulatory agencies, supermarket chains, giant food processors, and the so-called “natural” products industry.
Finally, public opinion around the biotech industry’s contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the tipping point. We’re fighting back. [Image: Protesters burn and tear up an experimental crop of genetically modified rapeseed. Photograph: David Hoffman Photo Library/ Al/Alamy]
“If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” – Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” — Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998
This November, in a food fight that will largely determine the future of what we eat and what we grow, Monsanto will face its greatest challenge to date: a statewide citizens’ ballot initiative that will give Californians the opportunity to vote for their right to know whether the food they buy is contaminated with GMOs.
A growing corps of food, health, and environmental activists – supported by the Millions against Monsanto and Occupy Monsanto Movements, and consumers and farmers across the nation – are boldly moving to implement mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in California through a grassroots-powered citizens ballot initiative process that will bypass the agribusiness-dominated state legislature. If passed, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, and outlaw the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as “natural.”
Passage of this initiative on November 6 will radically alter the balance of power in the marketplace, enabling millions of consumers to identify – and boycott – genetically engineered foods for the first time since 1994, when Monsanto’s first unlabeled, genetically-engineered dairy drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), was forced on the market,
As Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director for the Organic Consumers Association, pointed out at an Occupy Wall Street teach-in in Washington DC in early April: “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act ballot initiative is a perfect example of how the grassroots 99% can mobilize to take back American democracy from the corporate bullies, the 1%. By aggressively utilizing one of the last remaining tools of direct democracy, the initiative process (available to voters not only in California and 23 other states, but in thousands of cities and counties across the nation), we can bypass corrupt politicians, make our own laws, and force corporations like Monsanto to bend to the will of the people, in this case granting us our fundamental right to know what’s in our food.”
Moving the Battleground
This is not the first time Monsanto has been challenged by citizens’ initiatives or state and local legislative efforts. But this time, the momentum is in our favor.
In the past, GMO “right-to-know” activists have been outmaneuvered and outgunned by Monsanto and its minions in every state, except Vermont and Connecticut, where passing a labeling bill is still, at least theoretically, a long-shot. (Monsanto recently threatened to sue the state of Vermont if legislators there pass a GMO labeling bill).
Biotechnology Versus BioDemocracy Urgent National Action Alert!
OCA has learned that Vermont may not pass the GMO Labeling law now languishing in the state legislature, because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if they pass the bill. According to informed sources, Vermont Governor Peter Schumlin is probably the only one who can save the bill from dying in this legislature session, which ends May 1. Please get on the phone right now to Governor Schumlin and tell him not to buckle under Monsanto’s biotech bullying. We need a GMO labeling bill and we need one right now. Vermont can and should lead the way! Other states will follow.
Please pick up the phone now and call Governor Schumlin’s office:
Phone: 802 828-3333
TTY: 800 649-6825
Fax: 802 828-3339
Email: GovernorVT@state.vt.usEfforts to pass GMO labeling laws at the federal level have gone nowhere, despite the fact that more than one million consumers have emailed “Just Label It” petitions to the FDA, demanding mandatory labeling. (The FDA counted only 394 of the signatures, claiming that the main petition was submitted as a single document, or docket, and therefore counted as only one signature.)
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has introduced his perennial GMO labeling bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, though everyone knows it will never make it out of committee and come to a full House vote on the floor. Similar symbolic bills have been introduced in 18 state legislatures.
The battle has been raging for decades. But this time, it’s different.
Behind this historic California initiative is a broad, growing and powerful health, environmental, and consumer coalition, which includes the Organic Consumers Association, Organic Consumers Fund, Food Democracy Now!, Mercola.com, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family Farms, LabelGMOs.org, Eden Foods, Alliance for Natural Health, Dr. Bronner’s, United Farm Workers Union, American Public Health Association, Cornucopia Institute, Institute for Responsible Technology, Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, California Certified Organic Farmers, and scores of others.
This time, the industry faces informed – and alarmed – consumers who understand the danger of allowing out-of-control chemical and biotech companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont – the very same corporations that have assaulted us with toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, Agent Orange, carcinogenic food additives, PCBs, and now global warming – to dictate their food choices.
Keeping Consumers in the Dark, Keeping Farmers and Scientists Intimidated
Why has it taken so long to get this far? How have Monsanto and its cohorts been able to grow and maintain market supremacy while force-feeding unlabeled “Frankenfoods” to the public for decades?
By buying off politicians, bullying farmers and scientists, and keeping consumers in the dark.
Monsanto has sued more than 150 farmers across the US and Canada, and threatened thousands of others, for refusing to pay for “intellectual property theft” after their fields were contaminated by Monsanto’s patented genetically engineered crops.
The company has harassed and used the media to bully scientists who have exposed the public health and environmental hazards of genetically engineered foods and crops in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe. The renowned scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai from the UK, was pressured and discredited for reporting on the dangers of genetic engineering until he was eventually fired from his job. The same thing happened to the UK’s Environmental Minister, Michael Meacher.
In a number of other cases, scientists such as Ignacio Chapela, have received death threats. Chapela also said he received death threats to his children from “a high government official” in Mexico after he showed contamination of native corn with Monsanto’s GMOs. Other scientists, most notably Andres Carrasco from Argentina, have been assaulted by thugs. Monsanto has even hired the notorious mercenary gang, Blackwater, to spy on its opponents worldwide.
Why has Monsanto gone to such great lengths to thwart GMO labeling laws and initiatives? Because it understands the threat that truth-in-labeling poses for GMOs – and biotech industry profits. As soon as genetically engineered foods are labeled in the U.S., millions of consumers will read these labels and react. They’ll complain to grocery store managers and companies, they’ll talk to their family and friends. They’ll switch to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers complain about GE foods and food ingredients, stores will eventually stop selling them. Farmers will stop planting them.
Europe Shows Labels Can Drive GMOs off the Market
In Europe, there almost no genetically engineered crops, while here in the US, nearly 75% of all supermarket foods – including many so-called “natural” foods – are GE-tainted. Why? Because Europe requires labeling of genetically engineered foods – and the US does not.
This is exactly why activists have launched the California Ballot Initiative. Passing mandatory GMO food labeling in just one large state, California, the eighth largest economy in the world, where there is tremendous opposition to GE foods as well as a multi-billion dollar organic food industry, will ultimately have the same impact as a national labeling law.
If California voters pass the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma. Will they dare put labels on their branded food products in just one state, California, admitting these products contain genetically engineered ingredients, while withholding this ingredient label information in the other states? Will they allow their organic and non-GMO competitors to drive down their GMO-tainted brand market share?
The answer to both of these questions is likely no. What most of them will do is start to shift to organic and non-GMO ingredients, so as to avoid what the Monsanto executive 16 years ago aptly described as the “skull and crossbones” label.
Can you imagine Kellogg’s selling its Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in California with a label that admits it contains or may contain genetically engineered corn? This would be the kiss of death for their iconic brand. How about Kraft Boca Burgers admitting that their soybean ingredients are genetically modified? How about the entire non-organic food industry (including many so-called “natural” brands sold in Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s) admitting that a large proportion of their products are GE-tainted?
Once food manufacturers and supermarkets are forced to come clean and label genetically engineered products, they will likely remove all GE ingredients, to avoid the “skull and crossbones” effect, just like the food industry in the EU has done. In the wake of this development American farmers will convert millions of acres of GE crops to non-GMO or organic varieties.
What Now? The Campaign Needs Volunteers and Money
Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association – under the guise of its front group, the so-called Coalition Against the Costly Food Law – are building up a massive war chest up to defeat the California Ballot Initiative. They will literally spend millions to spread lies and disinformation that GMO foods and crops are perfectly safe – and that we need more, not less GMO food and biofuel crops in this era of climate change and growing population.
They will lie and say that GMO labels will be costly to the food industry and raise food prices. They will say that it is the job of the FDA to decide whether GMOs are labeled, not the states. Yet we already know that this battle will never be won in Washington DC, where Monsanto and Food Inc. lobbyists have politicians in their back pockets. It will only be won in places like California (or Vermont), vital centers of organic food and farming and anti-GMO sentiment, where 90% of the body politic, according to recent polls, support mandatory labeling.
This citizens initiative in California is a battle all of us. Please contact the campaign if you are willing to volunteer to join a national phone bank to contact California voters this fall or provide other support.
It’s time to take back control over our food and farming system. It’s time to stand up to Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies.
Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including “Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers” (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).
© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/154951/ -
Dow Chemical’s New GMO and Herbicide Product Enlist
2012 03 30
From: youtube.com/MophCity
Enlist is a new herbicide and GMO crop product from Dow Chemical and Monsanto. Links documenting information in video:
Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers
Dow AgroSciences Technology Use Agreement (pdf)
EPA admits dangers of 2,4-D herbicide (pdf)
Glyphosate problems & diseases
Greenhill Death Case: Peteet v. Dow Chemical
2,4-D info on Wikipedia (includes diseases)
Red Ice Radio: Jeffrey Smith - Seeds of Deception & The Danger of Genetically Engineered Foods -
Monsanto’s Roundup Threatens Stability Of Global Food Supply
Added by sherry on March 28, 2012.
by: Anthony Gucciardi
Hat tip: Natural News
(NaturalNews) Monsanto’s reckless disregard for public health and the agricultural stability of the planet may be even more significant than previously thought. A shocking new report reveals how Monsanto’s Roundup is actually threatening the crop-yielding potential of the entire biosphere. The report reveals that glyphosate, which was developed by Monsanto in the early 1970s and is the active ingredient in its patented herbicide Roundup, may be irreversibly devastating the microbiodiversity of the soil – compromising the health of the entire planet, as a result.
New research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and – amazingly – the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend. Concerningly, certain beneficial strains of bacteria used as food-starters in cultures for raw yogurt, such as Lactobacillus cremoris, have entirely disappeared from certain geographic regions where traditionally they were found in plenty. The study reports that the death and growth inhibition of selected food microorganisms was observed in concentrations of Roundup that are lower than are recommended in agricultural practice.
This means that farmers who are increasingly using larger and larger concentrations of Roundup and similar glyphosate-based herbicide formulations to countermand the increasingly resistant super weeds GM agriculture has spawned, are not only damaging the immediate health of the soil, but subsequent yields of indispensable food-starter microorganisms, as well as the microbes that ensure the overall fertility of the soil for producing crops well into the future.
Monsanto’s Roundup assaults the planetary biosphere
Microorganisms are responsible for much more than just the health content of raw and fermented foods. The most numerous inhabitants in the web of life, microorganisms participate quite literally “at the root” of the nitrogen, phosphate, oxygen and carbon cycles, and are therefore indispensable for the health of the entire biosphere. Astoundingly, there are an estimated 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 x 10 to the 30th power) bacterial cells on the planet, and these soil microrganisms represent about 50 percent of the the total biodiversity in terms of numbers of species.
As Roundup usage threatens these soil microrganisms, including fungi and the mycellium (technically the largest organism in the world), it could lead to devastating implications. Compromising the health of the mycellium, in particular, may cause serious harm to the planet. According to prominent mycologist Paul Stamets, mycellium may actually act as a ‘network’ within the biosphere, acting as the Earth’s ‘natural internet’ in which virtually all organisms may rely upon. It has been recognized throughout the ages that all life depends on the soil. Without healthy soil, the health of the entire planet is at risk.
Charles E. Kelogg was one individual who stated such in the USDA yearbook back in 1939. Kelogg said:
“Essentially, all life depends upon the soil … There can be no life without soil and no soil without life; they have evolved together.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt also voiced similar concerns, warning:
“The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.”
Based on an ever-increasing body of scientific evidence showing glyphosate biodegrades slowly, sinks down through the topsoil where it accumulates in the groundwater (source for natural drinking water, e.g. aquifers, springs), and is found in nearly all air and rain samples tested in the US, it is safe to say that Monsanto’s best-selling Roundup is one of the greatest threats to human and environmental health ever created.
As the USDA continues to sit back and allow Monsanto to threaten the environmental stability of the planet, it becomes more apparent that the USDA and Monsanto are gladly willing to exchange the future of the planet and its inhabitants for short term gain. In fact, the USDA has even given Monsanto’s latest GMO crops speedier approval in order to secure the company’s profits, ignoring the numerous known harmful effects of Monsanto’s past creations, e.g. Agent Orange, Aspartame, DDT.
The known effects of Roundup
The negative effects of Monsanto’s Roundup on human health and the environment have been firmly established by numerous scientific studies and large-scale investigations, with scientists even linking the best-selling herbicide to conditions like infertility and cancer due to its genotoxic (DNA damaging) nature. Amazingly, even when diluted by 99.8 percent (450-fold lower dilutions than used in agricultural applications), Roundup still exhibits serious genotoxic characteristics and is harmful to the integrity of human DNA. Meanwhile, this carcinogenic herbicide product is used nationwide by unsuspecting homeowners and agricultural workers. According to the United States Geological Survey, 176 million lbs of glyphosate were used in the U.S. in 2007.
Outside of the public health realm, Roundup’s startling environmental havoc is perhaps an even greater cause for concern. Despite being created to fend off weeds, Roundup is actually spawning resistant superweeds across millions of hectares (one hectare is 10,000 square metres), bankrupting farmers and destroying crop land. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa.
The research is clear: Roundup is not only harming human health and damaging farmland, it is threatening the very biosphere itself by destroying microbial biodiversity, with the future agricultural stability of the planet, i.e. the ability to produce food through monoculturing, at serious risk of collapsing.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22362186
http://www.naturalnews.com/035050_Roundup_Monsanto_DNA.html
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909
http://www.naturalnews.com/034620_Monsanto_diplomats_GMOs.html
-
World Bank Nominee Tied To Monsanto Shareholder Bill Gates, Soros
Added by jayfromeire on March 28, 2012.
By Tim McCoy
Obama has nominated Dartmouth University president Jim Yong Kim, M.D. to head the United Nations World Bank. Most people think that UN agencies benefit poor people, but this is far from the truth.The UN World Bank claims to fight poverty in developing nations by financing infrastructure projects. But the UN World Bank is really a tool used to acquire Third World natural resources through conditions on loans that are extremely difficult to repay. The raw resources are then privatized by insider multi-national corporations. The World Bank actually creates more poverty.The nomination of Jim Yong Kim indicates that the World Bank may shift away from focusing on infrastructure and will instead turn toward providing healthcare in Third World countries. Jim Yong Kim’s areas of interest include vaccines for tuberculosis as well as drugs for HIV and AIDS.
Kim brokered a deal with Big Pharma and the UN World Health Organization for expanding the pharmaceutical drug market to a larger populace in exchange for lower drug prices for second-line tuberculosis drugs. Second-line drugs are used when basic treatment fails because of drug resistance. Drug resistance similar to the new ‘resistant White Plague‘ brought about by big pharma’s drugs.
Many in the medical community believed it would be dangerous to distribute second-line drugs widely. Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations.
HIV/AIDS drugs used in the Third World have profound side effects that include eye, kidney, liver and heart problems.Jim Yong Kim says that the highest point in his career was when George Soros donated to Kim’s tuberculosis vaccine program, which was followed by a a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for $44.7 million. Monsanto shareholder Bill Gates, who has repeatedly stated that Monsanto’s GMOs are the answer to starvation, despite scientific proof of the contrary, gave a controversial speech at a Ted conference outlining the controversial population reduction plan through ‘healthcare’:The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.Additionally, Kim is the co-founder of Partners in Health along with Paul Farmer who is famous for saying that healthcare is a right. Healthcare as a “right” disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing. In addition, it also enables the government to determine whether or not an individual may receive care — the ‘right’ to live or die. Therefore, this shocking and disturbing program falls into the category of a eugenics-based plan.
Conclusion:The objective of Jim Yong Kim heading the UN World Bank appears to be to promote ludicrous policies by expanding healthcare through dangerous drugs. Kim’s support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine may come with a tremendous price tag for developed countries (especially the US).If the UN World Bank was truly a benevolent organization, the focus for the Third World would be on support for independent farming, clean water and food.This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.
