anyone that eats food needs to watch this.

[itchypickle]

http://www.cracked.com/video_18939_6-ways-food-industry-tricks-you-into-eating-garbage.html

Thought of you Dwighty

[DwightShrute]

http://www.cracked.com/video_18939_6...g-garbage.html

Thought of you Dwighty

sad huh?

thanks for sharing

[itchypickle]

sad huh?

thanks for sharing

Laughed my arse off about the Nutella parts. I hate that crap, not sure why the big ovations it gets.

[DwightShrute]

Laughed my arse off about the Nutella parts. I hate that crap, not sure why the big ovations it gets.

i loved that stuff growing up . on bread with a glass of milk!

[DwightShrute]

New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

July 15, 2014 by Arjun Walia.


In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (source) It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.After the research was completed, it went through rigorous reviews, as well as a four month review process by scientists and researchers. It was eventually approved and published, only to be retracted by request of the Journal. Although hundreds of scientists around the world condemned the retraction, and the researchers addressed the criticisms, it was to no avail.There is great news to report however, as this major GMO study has now been republished following its controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You can read more about that here.The study has now been published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)The chronic toxicity study examined the health impacts on rats of eating commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.The study found severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups.The republished study also has a section describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the retraction of the original publication. This is scientific fraud at its best. The authors express how the previous retraction was “a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide.”“We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science, thus, we republish our paper.” – Seralini“Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.” - SeraliniThis study has now successfully passed through multiple rounds of rigorous peer review. Again, the study shows that Roundup-treated GM corn as well as the herbicide used on it increases cancer in rats. There are a number of studies that demonstrate the potential health risks of GM plants, this one in particular drew heavy criticism from industry scientists.“The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that which is required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent associated press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification of the editorial decision to retract the Seralini Manuscript?” (source)Other Studies Regarding GMOs and Herbicides

There is a reason that multiple countries all over the world have been banning GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. More information is emerging everyday from scientists and researchers all over the world that clearly points to the fact that we just don’t know enough about GM’s to deem them totally safe for human consumption.By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki (source)Below is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote. For more information on this subject you can use the search bar on our website to find what you are looking for.1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.

“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchersemphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.” (2)

This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

• Intestinal permeability
• Imbalanced gut bacteria
• Immune activation and allergic response
• Impaired digestion
• Damage to the intestinal wall

The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors


In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4)and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)

Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7)

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report (7)

Here is a summary of the report:

• Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
• Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
• Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
• The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate

Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)

The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers. (10)

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.” (12) (15)

Sources:
(All other sources not listen here are highlighted throughout the article)
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13
(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf
(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069 805
(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/
(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf
(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf
(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
(12) http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_ crops_for_nutrition.pdf
(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324
(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.
(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

[DwightShrute]

...

[DwightShrute]

[dante1]

Poor kid he doesn't even get the irony. It is just way too much. Thank Jesus above he and his buddies carry the red flag, if not I would need to reconsider my political philosophy.

[Let's Go Rangers]

Poor kid he doesn't even get the irony. It is just way too much. Thank Jesus above he and his buddies carry the red flag, if not I would need to reconsider my political philosophy.

Wow

1st time back in over a month and immediately stalks Dwight

Next will come a thread showing MMGW IS occurring

[DwightShrute]

Poor kid he doesn't even get the irony. It is just way too much. Thank Jesus above he and his buddies carry the red flag, if not I would need to reconsider my political philosophy.

what is the irony? You know how much I value your opinion.

[dante1]

what is the irony? You know how much I value your opinion.

as I said you don't even get the irony, Dwightie I am tired of instructing you. the irony is so evident to anybody that has two brain cells but it escapes you. I would tell you to ask your friends but that is a waste of time. Maybe IP can help you out with this, he is the only one I can think of that might understand. keep up the good work, sometimes I think it is possible that you are actually a progressive plant because any true conservative would not be so obviously stupid and such an embarrassment to the cause. you just might be a progressive plant with an agenda to write as stupid as possible to embarrass the righties.

good job!

[brainfreeze]

Good to see people on this, get this crap out of here and restore the farmers.

[DwightShrute]

as I said you don't even get the irony, Dwightie I am tired of instructing you. the irony is so evident to anybody that has two brain cells but it escapes you. I would tell you to ask your friends but that is a waste of time. Maybe IP can help you out with this, he is the only one I can think of that might understand. keep up the good work, sometimes I think it is possible that you are actually a progressive plant because any true conservative would not be so obviously stupid and such an embarrassment to the cause. you just might be a progressive plant with an agenda to write as stupid as possible to embarrass the righties.

good job!

lol. crazy people obviously don't realize they are actually crazy.

[DwightShrute]

Good to see people on this, get this crap out of here and restore the farmers.

its a huge issue imo as it should be for everyone regardless if some want to pretend its a party issue. Those few are beyond help.

[DwightShrute]

slowly but surely people are waking up !


Store Hires Full-Time Employee to Keep GMOs Off Its Shelves





Natures Food Patch, Clearwater, FL

The health food giant Whole Foods made waves when it announced it would begin to voluntarily label all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by the year 2018.

But one independent Florida health food store is putting the chain to shame with its current policy of hiring a full-time GMO researcher tasked with keeping all products containing the highly controversial ingredients off of its store shelves.

The store Natures Food Patch, based in the Tampa Bay area (in Clearwater), currently employs a full-time “GMO Researcher” named Patience Melton, who spoke with the website WFLA.com in this article. Natures Food Patch in Clearwater, Florida has taken a stance against GMOs.

Natures Food Patch in Clearwater, Florida has taken a clear stance against GMOs.

Melton told the newspaper that it is part of the job description to contact all companies that create “health food products” to make sure there are no GMOs in their recipes.

If no response is given, the store will take to social media channels to get feedback from companies who don’t want to see their products pulled from store shelves.

According to the article, no products containing GMOs will be stocked from this point on, and products that are carried are voluntarily labeled as GMO-Free.

Smaller Health Food Stores Put Whole Foods to Shame

While Whole Foods is fun to shop at and it does contain plenty of high quality organic food, it’s time that consumers everywhere start recognizing that it’s a business first and foremost, and has not done nearly enough to help in the ongoing pursuit for GMO freedom and at the very least transparency that we all need to see.

I’ve seen many local health food stores like this one in my area go above and beyond the call of duty to eliminate GMOs, while the one chain with enough weight and political pull to get things done refuses to do anything for the next 4-5 years.
Read more about why I believe Whole Foods’ 2018 labeling plan is simply unacceptable by clicking on this article.

[brainfreeze]

Here in New Orleans, if you want to avoid gmo's, you have to shop at whole foods, food there is priced up so high though.

[DwightShrute]

Here in New Orleans, if you want to avoid gmo's, you have to shop at whole foods, food there is priced up so high though.

like I said before, if you want to eat poison then at least label the foods so those that don't want to consume poison (gmo's) have the choice. If you are facebook, this is a great site https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

[DwightShrute]

GMO's??

[DwightShrute]

[DwightShrute]

Bill Maher Blasts Fear-Mongering Over ISIS, Suggests They Should Be More Afraid Of Monsanto!

[itchypickle]

South Park episode last night....gluten

[rkelly110]

Maybe one good thing about eating GMO's, we won't have bugs eating our insides.

[DwightShrute]

[DwightShrute]

Big Win! Monsanto Reports $156 Million Loss in Q4 as Farmers Abandon GM Crops

• Public

October 12, 2014




Are you invested in Monsanto stock like Bill Gates, who owns hundreds of thousand of Monsanto shares worth about $23 million? It might be time to pull out since the company just reported over $156 million in losses for the fourth quarter.

“For the quarter ended Aug. 31, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million, or 31 cents per share, compared with a loss of $249 million, or 47 cents per share, in the same period last year.”

It’s a tough time for biotech, and thank goodness. Monsanto’s losses were attributed to farmers in major agricultural zones favoring soy over GMO corn because of falling crop prices – largely caused by Syngenta’s release of MIR162 corn, which has been completely refused by Chinese officials repeatedly – which have depressed both local and foreign corn bushel prices.
There is a looming $1 billion dollar class action lawsuit Syngenta will face, currently pending in three states over the release of AGRISURE VIPTERA® 4. All three class action suits were filed this past week in Federal Courts by U.S. farmers.

Syngenta also just happens to be the company that has covered up the true toxicity of Atrazine, and the company has been sued in six different states to clean up more than 1000 water systems in six states where the herbicide has been found polluting rivers, streams, and lakes.

Soybeans sales are still around $200 million, doubled from previous years, but they account for a much lower market share than the GMO corn products which Monsanto sells and promotes for use with their toxic herbicide, RoundUp.
Adjusted losses for the biotech bully come to 27 cents a share, three cents worse than estimates.

While it would have been nice to take down this Agri Business giant for different reasons, it seems the company’s partner in crime, Syngenta, is doing the work of dismantling the GMO paradigm for us.

In the last two years, Monsanto has reported huge losses, so we must be doing something right. If this trend continues, and it should if we continue the good fight, then we can all hope to see the GMO Empire crumble in due time. Continue raising awareness and purchasing non-GMO, organic foods. Voice your words with your dollar.
Additional Sources:
ABC News

[DwightShrute]

[DwightShrute]

what is a GMO?

[DwightShrute]

Study Links GMOs to Over 22 Different Diseases

• Public

December 6, 2014



A new study released in September of this year gives even more evidence that GMOs should have been banned before they were ever allowed on the market. Read on to find out how “Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America” pinpoints a significant correlation between GMOs and 22 diseases.
Why does the biotech industry keep hiding the toxicity of their products? Well, there are numerous reasons – the corruption of the American and international governments, the fact that the USDA’s main man appointed by Obama was a former Monsanto executive, and the tremendously deep pockets of mega-corporations to launch propaganda campaigns – are just a few.
The aforementioned title was published in The Journal of Organic Systems. It is full of very detailed evidence of the link between genetically modified ingredients and diseases such as liver failure, urinary and bladder cancers, hypertension, thyroid disease, stroke, obesity, and more. It is replete with telling charts and graphs that describe visually the mayhem that GMOs have unleashed on society.
Much of the study focuses on the introduction of glyphosate and its subsequent ramifications on human health. The herbicide was introduced in 1974, but the research conducted within this study relied on data since the 1990s, since that is all that was available. Since the early 90s, glyphosate use has grown astronomically.
As the study details:

“. . .glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them.”

Though the authors admit that correlation is not proof of causation, they state that:

“. . .we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence.”

They also bring attention to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods:

“[S]everal animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

So what did the authors of this study conclude?
There is an obvious and significant correlation between the increased use of glyphosate and genetically engineered crops grown specifically to withstand its use, and a growing multitude of diseases and their frequency. Many of the graphs show a marked increase right around the 1990s when the makers of glyphosate enjoyed a boost in their profits and an enormous swell of herbicide use from products like RoundUp and others containing the same chemicals.
There is no mistaking the data – the large increase in glyphosate use in the US is mostly due to the increase in glyphosate-resistant GE crops – and this has led to more disease.
The researchers state:

“The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow. The number of graphs with similar data trends also indicates a strong probability that there is a link. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, when correlation coefficients of over 0.95 (with p-value significance levels less than 0.00001) are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be imprudent not to consider causation as a plausible explanation.”

Sure there are many reasons for chronic disease – diet, lack of exercise, exposure to other environmental toxins, and even genetic predisposition among them, but when your body can’t rid itself of a known carcinogen because it is added straight to the food supply in copious amounts – of course you are going to get sick. It doesn’t take 22 charts to figure that out. After all, glyphosate is appearing in people’s urine, blood, and breast milk.
Since glyphosate is also an endocrine disruptor, this would imply that the current permitted residue levels in food could be causing multiple health problems that have been documented in the scientific literature.
The endocrine system is essential to human health. Since it is being attacked by biotech chemicals on a daily basis, the glands in our bodies like the pituitary, thymus, and pineal can’t secrete hormones that keep us fit, healthy, and disease-free.
All of these functions are carried out by the endocrine system:

• Growth and development

• Homeostasis (the internal balance of body systems)

• Metabolism (body energy levels)

• Reproduction

• Response to stimuli (stress and/or injury)

Of course, the body will start to respond with disease-like symptoms when the metabolism, reproductive system, and nervous system are constantly trying to right themselves due to glyphosate exposure.
We are the guinea pigs of biotech – a grand science experiment gone wrong (or right depending on who you talk to and the motives suspected behind biotech technologies).
The researchers urge independent scientific research. They expound:

“The data presented in this paper highlight the need for independent scientific research to be conducted, especially in the areas of the endocrine disruption, cancer precursor, oxidative stress, gut microbiome and the Cytochrome P450 pathways. It is our hope that, in addition to more basic research in the form of toxicology and carcinogenic studies, epidemiology studies will be undertaken by experts in each of these disease categories.”

In my estimation, there is already ample evidence, even with the biotech white-wash and out-right manipulation of universities, non-profits, and scientific journals, that GMOs are dangerous.
So, until we are able to ban all GMO crops completely, add these 10 GMO foods to your GMO foods list so you can more easily avoid them. You can also avoid the eight main GM crops:

• Corn
• Soybeans
• Canola
• Cottonseed
• Sugar Beets
• Most Hawaiian Papaya
• Some Zucchini and Yellow Squash
• Sugar Derived from GMO Sugar Beets
• Dairy is additionally likely to be GMO unless it is labeled No rBGH, rBST, or artificial hormones.

Below are some of the key charts from the Journal of Organic Systems study. You can also read the full study on the correlation between GMO and 22 different diseases for more details.



Additional Sources:
Alternet


Original: http://naturalsociety.com/study-link...rent-diseases/

[DwightShrute]

Hershey’s Most Popular Chocolates Will Go GMO-Free by End of the Year

March 4, 2015

Public pressure is changing the world, the food world that is – thanks to relentless social media campaigns from around the globe we are finally making progress another company crosses over and promises to remove all GMOs from their products! This has more to do with their bottom line than their belief that GMOs are dangerous and I for one am not rushing out to purchase a chocolate bar anytime soon but I am celebrating the knowledge that we can make a difference and our voice is being heard!

Now that Valentine’s Day has come and gone, the Hershey Company’s love affair with Genetically Modified Organisms is (mostly) over.

After years of mounting pressure and thousands of Facebook posts, e-mails and telephone calls from consumers and advocacy organizations, the candy giant announced it “will feature a lineup of simple ingredients, and transition some of its most popular chocolate brands, including Hershey’s Kisses Milk Chocolates and Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bars to simpler ingredients.”This means, as Confectionery News reported, Hershey will swap genetically modified sugar beet for cane sugar, as well as switch to non-genetically modified soy lecithin for these iconic products by the end of the year. Artificial vanillin and emulsified polyglycerol polyricinoleate (which reduces the viscosity of chocolate and is used as a replacement for expensive cocoa butter) will also be dropped.

Besides switching to ingredients people can actually recognize, the confectionery company said it’s aiming for more transparency in sourcing, manufacturing and labeling process. Hershey says it’s also working with suppliers to source 100 percent certified and sustainable cocoa, as well as certified sustainable and traceablepalm oil.

“We will strive for simplicity with all of our ingredients, but we may not achieve it with every product,” Hershey president and CEO John P. Bilbrey said

Click here to read the full article Hershey’s Most Popular Chocolates Will Go GMO-Free by End of the Year

[DwightShrute]

Monsanto Has Knowingly Been Poisoning People for (at Least) 35 Years


Christina Sarich, Natural Society
Waking Times

But we’re not allowed to know about it…

Evidence has surfaced from the archives of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that now proves that Monsanto has been fully aware of the potential of glyphosate to cause cancer in mammals (human populations) since as early as 1981.

When the WHO recently announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” the first thing the company did was move to damage control – to “evade detection of apprehension” for their heinous deeds. Teams of writers with links to the biotech industry went to work refusing that their chemicals were causing cancer the world over, even though study after study has proven a link between the two.

How can Monsanto maintain that glyphosate and GMOs are harmless? What are these “800 studies” proving its safety, and where are they? And how can the EPA, which reviews extensive toxicological and environmental data before registering an active ingredient, corroborate such nonsense and classify glyphosate as “practically non-toxic” when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Especially when their own documents tell a very different story!
With a search through EPA around the time of glyphosate’s initial registration (in addition to earlierinvestigations by Sustainable Pulse which highlighted a sudden change in the EPA view on toxicity in 1991), what was discovered was very illuminating.

Among the EPA’s records were multiple animal experiments (using rats, mice, and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration.

At least two of the these reports involving the reproductive systems of rats exposed to glyphosate had telling results, but these were shielded from pubic view as ‘trade secrets’ of the biotech industry. What exactly were in those studies? Why can’t the public know? Monsanto’s need for secrecy shows that their aims were likely far more sinister than anyone would like to think.

Dr. Pang (retired US Army Medical Corps, former consultant to the World Health Organization for 20 years ) offers his important assessment of what might sit underneath all those Monsanto blacked-out lines [in recently exposed secret Monsanto documents regarding the Maui County vs. Monsanto case]:
As Jon Rappoport recently detailed:

“There are two worries I have about the redacted lines which only Monsanto and the judge sees. What if…[the redacted lines] reference a Monsanto…chemical similar to toxaphene(banned for toxicity and spreading hundreds of miles). Can she [Judge Mollway] tell us what [Monsanto] chemicals are similar enough to toxaphene to be worrisome? Can she recognize the chemical structure of toxaphene (from multiple choice diagrams)? What if it is toxaphene itself? Furthermore…the [Monsanto legal] argument depends intimately on untested combinations [of Monsanto chemical pesticides]……I need to know the number of chemicals used AND the amounts used to see their potential for [toxic] overlap. I feel I am competent to make these assessments.
I don’t have access to the [un]redacted versions of Monsanto documents]. Only two other parties do. 1) Monsanto is grossly biased and 2) the Judge who is not scientifically qualified. If she brings in a third party ‘independent’ (say UH) to assess for her, they have to be both non-biased and scientifically qualified. I am not even convinced she can recognize the scientific qualifications of her own advisers. For example, ask them their opinion on the recent ruling of WHO on glyphosate risk of cancer [glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup]. On the mutational potential of glyphosate for human pathogens related to antibiotic resistance. On the gene toxicity (same mechanism as cancer) relationship [of glyphosate] to birth defects (widely published, even before the cancer risk publications).
If [the Monsanto] info is redacted because of threat of vandalism [at their secret facility locations on Maui]—that is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court decision.”

In this argument, Dr. Pang obliterates any rationale for Monsanto and the federal court to heavily censor Monsanto documents – from the EPA, USDA, or elsewhere.
It is now common knowledge that during the Cold War, Monsanto’s 2,4-D was a form of biological warfare, and Operation Ranch Hand using Agent Orange killed millions and caused an untold number of birth defects. Is this what Monsanto is hiding about their toxic brew of chemicals used today?
Many attest that GM foods are nothing more than biological weapons. Some say they are premeditated murder. Some say they are meant to sterilize an entire generation of people:

“We have a greenhouse full of corn plants that produce anti-sperm antibodies.” ~ Mitch Hein, president of Epicyte, a California-based biotechnology company.

Moreover, the Codex international organization, founded by the United Nations, charged with regulating all foods, minerals, and herbs in the world, does not believe that GMO products are food, and as such, “can be used for various practices, including birth control and the creation of infertility in a nation or people.”
President of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, said his company’s transgenic corn plants, “create anti-sperm antibodies.”
He has also explained that the creation of transgenic organisms and their use in food could be used as a tool to solve the “overpopulation problem.”

Monsanto is not creating food.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/04/2...east-35-years/

[DwightShrute]

Man Holds A PATENT That Could Destroy MONSANTO And Change The World


March 9th, 2015

If there's anything you read – or share – let this be it. The content of this article has potential to radically shift the world in a variety of positive ways.

And as Monsanto would love for this article to not go viral, all we can ask is that you share, share, share the information being presented so that it can reach as many people as possible.

In 2006, a patent was granted to a man named Paul Stamets. Though Paul is the world's leading mycologist, his patent has received very little attention and exposure. Why is that? Stated by executives in the pesticide industry, this patent represents “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.” And when the executives say disruptive, they are referring to it being disruptive to the chemical pesticides industry.

What has Paul discovered? The mycologist has figured out how to use mother nature's own creations to keep insects from destroying crops. It's what is being called SMART pesticides. These pesticides provide safe & nearly permanent solution for controlling over 200,000 species of insects - and all thanks to the 'magic' of mushrooms.
Paul does this by taking entomopathogenic Fungi (fungi that destroys insects) and morphs it so it does not produce spores. In turn, this actually attracts the insects who then eat and turn into fungi from the inside out!

This patent has potential to revolutionize the way humans grow crops – if it can be allowed to reach mass exposure.

To tolerate the use of pesticides in modern agriculture is to deny evidence proving its detrimental effects against the environment. Such ignorance really can no longer be tolerated. For example, can you imagine a world without bees? Monsanto's chemical concoctions which are being sprayed all over farmers' fields around the world are attributed to the large-scale bee die off. While a growing number of countries are banning Monsanto, it's still being used in in nations who should be aware of its dangers. To say that new methods need to be implemented before it is too late is an understatement.

Monsanto presently generates $16 billion dollars per year (as reported in 2014), therefore you can be certain they do not want anything interrupting that flow of revenue. Such income gives them nearly limitless resources and abilities to suppress information that may be damaging their reputation.

But by becoming educated on the benefits of growing sustainable, organic, and bio-dynamic food, sharing articles like this, and boycotting GMO & herbicide-sprayed crops, the corporate demon may soon get the message.

http://ewao.com/a/1-he-holds-the-pat...ange-the-world

Here are helpful links to understand more about the incredible patent discussed above:

Here is a link to the patent we are speaking of: 7,122,176
http://www.google.com/patents/US7122176
A list of all the patents Paul has applied for:
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/paul-edward-stamets
Plenty of information about Paul Stamets:
http://www.fungi.com/about-paul-stamets.html
Wikipedia page about Paul Stamets:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Stamets

[itchypickle]

Chipotle is on the wagon now

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/investing/chipotle-gmo-free/

[DwightShrute]

Chipotle is on the wagon now

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/inve...otle-gmo-free/

[DwightShrute]

LMFAO!

[DwightShrute]

awesome news! hopefully this will rapidly spread across North America to all States and Provinces!



Judge Says Vermont Law on Genetically Modified Food Stands (Associated Press)

By Anna Meyer • April 27, 2015

Originally published by the Associated Press
by Dave Gram
April 27, 2015

A Vermont law that could make the state the first in the country to require labeling of genetically modified food has been allowed by a federal judge to stand for now despite opposition by food industry groups.
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss in Burlington on Monday ruled against the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association and other industry groups in their request for a preliminary order to block the law from going into effect as scheduled on July 1, 2016.

The judge partially granted and partially denied the state’s motion to dismiss the industry lawsuit, meaning the case is likely to go to trial.

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office finalized rules to implement the law on April 17, said in an interview, “There’s a lot of good news in this decision for us and for the heart and soul of the labeling law.”
The Grocery Manufacturers Association said it was pleased the court “found us likely to succeed on several of our claims” but was disappointed at the denial of its request for a preliminary injunction.
“Manufacturers are being harmed, and they are being harmed now,” the association said in a statement. “Act 120 is unconstitutional and imposes burdensome new speech requirements on food manufacturers and retailers.”

The ruling comes nearly a year after Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the law, under which Vermont is expected to become the first state to require genetically modified organism, or GMO, food labeling. Connecticut and Maine passed laws earlier but required that neighboring states follow suit before they would take effect.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association was joined by the Snack Foods Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, seeking to have Vermont’s law declared unconstitutional.

Throughout the legislative and legal debate on GMO labeling, industry groups have argued that the First Amendment gives them broad discretion about what to include on their labels and that there’s no compelling state interest to offset that.

Supporters of the law have included consumer and environmental groups. Muslims and some Jews avoid pork, and concerns have been raised about pork genes being introduced into other foods.
The judge found that the concerns embedded in Vermont’s law were well within the state’s purview.
“The safety of food products, the protection of the environment, and the accommodation of religious beliefs and practices are all quintessential governmental interests, as is the State’s desire ‘to promote informed consumer decision-making,’” she wrote, quoting from the state’s court filings.

The court dismissed the industry groups’ request that it apply a legal standard of strict scrutiny to the free-speech issues in the case, making it easier at trial for the state to rebut the companies’ First Amendment claims. It also dismissed the plaintiffs’ request that the law be found to violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Conversely, Sorrell said the court made it clear the state would face “an uphill battle” in defending a ban in the law on food companies labeling genetically modified food as “natural.”

[itchypickle]

Best tasting snacks on the market so far with the non GMO seal of approval.