anyone that eats food needs to watch this.

South Park episode last night....gluten

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

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

what is a GMO?

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/

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

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/

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

Chipotle is on the wagon now

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

Originally Posted by itchypickle

Chipotle is on the wagon now

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

LMFAO!

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.”

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