DEPOPULATION - what elites want -

[Steven Gaal]

Ozone air pollution could harm women's fertility

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150329141015.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:March 29, 2015

=

Source:Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Summary:Many urban and suburban areas have high levels of ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that can adversely affect lung and heart health. New research in mice suggests breathing high levels of ozone could also affect women’s ability to conceive.

[Steven Gaal]

AlterNet =Environment

As Chipotle Goes GMO-free, Monsanto's Worst Fear Is Coming True

Chipotle's decision may compel other food brands to follow suit.

=

http://www.alternet.org/environment/chipotle-goes-gmo-free-monsantos-worst-fear-coming-true see link for links mentioned

By Jonathan Latham, PhD / The Ecologist

May 21, 2015

The decision of the Chipotle restaurant chain to make its product lines GMO-free is not most people's idea of a world-historic event. Especially since Chipotle, by US standards, is not a huge operation.

A clear sign that the move is significant, however, is that Chipotle's decision was met with a tidal-wave of establishment media abuse.

Despite the company's clear and rational explanation of its move, Chipotle has been called irresponsible, anti-science, irrational, and much more by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune the LA Times, and many others.

A business deciding to give consumers what they want was surely never so contentious.

The media lynching of Chipotle has an explanation that is important to the future of GMOs. The cause of it is that there has long been an incipient crack in the solid public front that the food industry has presented on the GMO issue.

GMOs are essential to agrobusiness - but not to consumer-facing brands

The crack originates from the fact that while agribusiness sees GMOs as central to their business future, the brand-oriented and customer-sensitive ends of the food supply chain do not.

The brands who sell to the public, such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, Kraft, etc, are therefore much less committed to GMOs. They have gone along with their use, probably because they wish to maintain good relations with agribusiness, who are their allies and their suppliers. Possibly also they see a potential for novel products in a GMO future.

However, over the last five years, as the reputation of GMOs has come under increasing pressure in the US, the cost to food brands of ignoring the growing consumer demand for GMO-free products has increased. They might not say so in public, but the sellers of top brands have little incentive to take the flack for selling GMOs.

From this perspective, the significance of the Chipotle move becomes clear. If Chipotle can gain market share and prestige, or charge higher prices, from selling non-GMO products and give (especially young) consumers what they want, it puts traditional vendors of fast and processed food products in an invidious position.

Who's next? Kraft? MacDonalds?

Kraft and MacDonalds, and their traditional rivals can hardly be left on the sidelines selling outmoded products to a shrinking market. They will not last long. MacDonald's already appears to be in trouble, and it too sees the solution as moving to more up-market and healthier products.

For these much bigger players, a race to match Chipotle and get GMOs out of their product lines, is a strong possibility. That may not be so easy, in the short term, but for agribusiness titans who have backed GMOs, like Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer and Syngenta; a race to be GMO-free is the ultimate nightmare scenario.

Until Chipotle's announcement, such considerations were all behind the scenes. But all of a sudden this split has spilled out into the food media.

On 8th May NY-based Hain Celestial, which describes itself as "a leading natural and organic food and personal care products company in North America and Europe"told The Food Navigator: "We sell organic products ... gluten-free products and ... natural products. [but] where the big, big demand is, is GMO-free ... "

He added that 99% of the company's products already contain no GMOs, 500 have been formally verified as GMO-free, another 650 are undergoing verification, and many more are in the pipeline.

According to the article, unlike Heinz, Kraft, and many others, Hain Celestial is actively seeking to meet this demand. Within the food industry, important decisions, for and against GMOs, are taking place.

Significantly, Chipotle is also working to take its GMO-free policy a stage further by sourcing only beef from pure grass-fed herds - and thus avoiding the GMO corn and soya based animal feeds that most cattle are fattened up on.

Herbicide residues - why the pressure to remove GMOs will grow

The other factor in all this turmoil is that the GMO technology wheel has not stopped turning. New GMO products are coming on stream that will likely make crop biotechnology even less popular than it is now. This will further ramp up the pressure on brands and stores to go GMO-free. There are several contributory factors.

The first issue follows from the recent US approvals of GMO crops resistant to the herbicides 2,4-D and Dicamba. These traits are billed as replacements for Roundup-resistant traits whose effectiveness has declined due to the spread of weeds resistant to Roundup (Glyphosate).

The causes of the problem, however, lie in the technology itself. The introduction of Roundup-resistant traits in corn and soybeans led to increasing Roundup use by farmers (Benbrook 2012).

Increasing Roundup use led to weed resistance, which led to further Roundup use, as farmers increased applications and dosages. This translated into escalated ecological damage and increasing residue levels in food. Roundup is now found in GMO soybeans intended for food use at levels that even Monsanto used to call "extreme" (Bøhn et al. 2014).

The two new herbicide-resistance traits are set to recapitulate this same story of increasing agrochemical use. But they will also amplify it significantly.

A trajectory of ever-more herbicide on GMO crops

The specifics are worth considering. First, the spraying of 2,4-D and Dicamba on the newer herbicide-resistant crops will not eliminate the need for Roundup, whose use will not decline (see Figure).

That is because, unlike Roundup, neither 2,4-D nor Dicamba are broad-spectrum herbicides. They will have to be sprayed together with Roundup, or with each other (or all of them together) to kill all weeds. This vital fact has not been widely appreciated.

Confirmation comes from the companies themselves. Monsanto is stacking (i.e. combining) Dicamba resistance with Roundup resistance in its Xtend crops and Dow is stacking 2,4-D resistance with Roundup resistance in its Enlist range. Notably, resistance to other herbicides, such as glufosinate, are being stacked in all these GMO crops too.

The second issue is that the combined spraying of 2,4-D and Dicamba and Roundup, will only temporarily ease the weed resistance issues faced by farmers. In the medium and longer terms, they will compound the problems. That is because new herbicide-resistant weeds will surely evolve.

In fact, Dicamba-resistant and 2,4-D-resistant weeds already exist. Their spread, and the evolution of new ones, can be guaranteed (Mortensen et al 2012). This will bring greater profits for herbicide manufacturers, but it will also bring greater PR problems for GMOs and the food industry.

GMO soybeans and corn will likely soon have "extreme levels" of at least three different herbicides, all of them with dubious safety records (Schinasi and Leon 2014).

The first time round, Monsanto and Syngenta's PR snow-jobs successfully obscured this, not just from the general public, but even within agronomy. But it is unlikely they will be able to do so a second time. 2,4-D and Dicamba-resistant GMOs are thus a PR disaster waiting to happen.

A pipeline full of problems: risk and perception

The longer term problem for GMOs is that, despite extravagant claims, their product pipeline is not bulging with promising ideas. Mostly, it is more of the same: herbicide resistance and insect resistance.

=

The most revolutionary and innovative part of that pipeline is a technology and not a trait. Many products in the GMO pipeline are made using RNA interference technologies that rely on double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs).

dsRNA is a technology with two problems. One is that products made with it (such as the 'Arctic' apple, the 'Innate' potato, and Monsanto's 'Vistive Gold' soybeans) are unproven in the field. Like its vanguard, a Brazilian virus-resistant bean, they may never work under actual farming conditions.

But if they do work, there is a clear problem with their safety which is explained in detail here (PDF).

In outline, the problem is this: the long dsRNA molecules needed for RNA interference were rejected long ago as being too hazardous for routine medical use (Anonymous, 1969). The scientific literature even calls them "toxins", as in a 1969 paper in Nature by Absher & Stinebring (see references).

As further evidence of this, long dsRNAs are now used in medicine to cause autoimmune disorders in mice, in order to study these disorders (Okada et al 2005).

The Absher and Stinebring paper comes from a body of research built up many years ago, but its essential findings have been confirmed and extended by more modern research. We now know why dsRNAs cause harm.

They trigger destructive anti-viral defence pathways in mammals and other vertebrates and there is a field of specialist research devoted to showing precisely how this damages individual cells, whole tissues, and results in auto-immune disease in mice (Karpala et al. 2005).

The conclusion therefore, is that dsRNAs that are apparently indistinguishable from those produced in, for example, the Arctic apple and Monsanto's Vistive Gold Soybean, have strong negative effects on vertebrate animals (but not plants). These vertebrate effects are found even at low doses.

Have they forgotten that humans are 'vertebrate animals'?

Consumers are vertebrate animals. They may not appreciate the thought that their healthy fats and forever apples also contain proven toxins. And on a business front, consumer brands will not relish defending dsRNA technology once they understand the reality. They may not wish to find themselves defending the indefensible.

The bottom line is this. Either dsRNAs will sicken or kill people, or, they will give opponents of biotechnology plenty of ammunition. The scientific evidence, as it currently stands, suggests they will do both. dsRNAs, therefore, are a potentially huge liability.

The last pipeline problem stems from the first two. The agbiotech industry has long held out the prospect of 'consumer benefits' from GMOs. Consumer benefits (in the case of food) are most likely to be health benefits (improved nutrition, altered fat composition, etc).

The problem is that the demographic of health-conscious consumers no doubt overlaps significantly with the demographic of those most wary of GMOs. Show a consumer a 'healthy GMO' and they are likely to show you an oxymoron.

The likely health market in the US for customers willing to pay more for a GMO has probably evaporated in the last few years as GMOs have become a hot public issue.

=

The end-game for GMOs?

The traditional chemical industry approach to such a problem is a familiar repertoire of intimidation and public relations. Fifty years ago, the chemical industry outwitted and outmanoeuvered environmentalists after the death of Rachel Carson (see the books Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us We're Experts).

But that was before email, open access scientific publication, and the internet. Monsanto and its allies have steadily lost ground in a world of peer-to-peer communication. GMOs have become a liability, despite their best efforts.

The historic situation is this: in any country, public acceptance of GMOs has always been based on lack of awareness of their existence. Once that ignorance evaporates and the scientific and social realities start to be discussed, ignorance cannot be reinstated. From then on the situation moves into a different, and much more difficult phase for the defenders of GMOs.

Nevertheless, in the US, those defenders have not yet given up. Anyone who keeps up with GMOs in the media knows that the public is being subjected to an unrelenting and concerted global blitzkrieg.

Pro-GMO advocates and paid-for journalists, presumably financed by the life-science industry, sometimes fronted by non-profits such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are being given acres of prominent space to make their case.

Liberal media outlets such as the New York Times, the National Geographic, the New Yorker, Grist magazine, the Observer newspaper, and any others who will have them (which is most) have been deployed to spread its memes. Cornell University has meanwhile received a $5.6 million grant by the Gates Foundation to "depolarize" negative GMO publicity.

The anti-GMO movement is only growing in strength and numbers

But so far there is little sign that the growth of anti-GMO sentiment in Monsanto's home (US) market can be halted. The decision by Chipotle is certainly not an indication of faith that it can.

For Monsanto and GMOs the situation suddenly looks ominous. Chipotle may well represent the beginnings of a market swing of historic proportions. GMOs may be relegated to cattle-feed status, or even oblivion, in the USA. And if GMOs fail in the US, they are likely to fail elsewhere.

GMO roll-outs in other countries have relied on three things: the deep pockets of agribusinesses based in the United States, their political connections, and the notion that GMOs represent 'progress'.

If those three disappear in the United States, the power to force open foreign markets will disappear too. The GMO era might suddenly be over.

This article was originally published in Independent Science Newsunder a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

====================

Endnote: The report by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson on RNA interference and dsRNAs in GMO crops is downloadable from here. Accompanying Tables are here.

References

Anonymous (1969) Interferon inducers with side effects. Nature 223: 666-667.

Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J. and Primicerio, R. 2014. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry 153: 207-215.

Absher M., and Stinebring W. (1969) Toxic properties of a synthetic double-stranded RNA. Nature 223: 715-717. Not available online.

Okada C., Akbar S.M.F., Horiike N., and Onji M. (2005) Early development of primary biliary cirrhosis in female C57BL/6 mice because of poly I:C administration. Liver International 25: 595-603.

Karpala A.J., Doran T.J., and Bean A.G.D. (2005) Immune responses to dsRNA: Implications for gene silencing technologies. Immunology and cell biology 83: 211-216.

Mortensen, David A., J. Franklin Egan, Bruce D. Maxwell, Matthew R. Ryan and Richard G. Smith (2012) Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management. BioScience 62: 75-84.

Schinasi L and Maria E. Leon ME (2014) Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11: 4449-4527.

Jonathan R. Latham, PhD, is co-founder and executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, which is the publisher of Independent Science News.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Beijing Olympics 'natural study' links pollution to lower birth weight

===

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428171400.htm

===
Date:April 28, 2015 Source:University of Rochester Medical Center Summary:Exposure to high levels of pollution can have a significant impact on fetal growth and development, researchers conclude. Their study found that women who were pregnant during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when pollution levels were reduced by the Chinese government, gave birth to children with higher birth weights compared to those who were pregnant before and after the games.

################################################################################################

EU drops controls on dangerous chemicals after TTIP pressure from US – report

==

EU proposals to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer, fertility problems and diabetes were allegedly dropped following pressure from US trade officials amid talks on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Draft EU criteria could have banned some 31 pesticides containing dangerous endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), but according to documents obtained by Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe and cited by The Guardian, they were cast aside amid fears of a trade backlash by a powerful US lobby.

According to the report, a high-ranking delegation from the US Mission to Europe and the American Chambers of Commerce (AmCham) visited European Union trade officials in July 2013 in a bid to urge the EU to drop its planned criteria for identifying EDCs in favor of a new impact study. The TTIP trade deal was at stake, and the EU allegedly agreed to the US demands.

TTIP is a highly controversial proposed EU-US free trade treaty that has been criticized for its secretiveness and lack of accountability.

Read more

Secretive trans-Atlantic trade pact faces global day of action (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

AmCham representatives allegedly “complained about the uselessness of creating categories and thus, lists” of prohibited substances. The US trade representatives reportedly suggested taking a risk-based approach to regulation, and “emphasized the need for an impact assessment” instead.

The secretary-general of the commission, Catherine Day, allegedly sent a letter to the environment department’s director, Karl Falkenberg, telling him to drop the draft criteria, suggesting that “as other DGs [directorate-generals] have done, you consider making a joint single impact assessment to cover all the proposals” instead.

“We do not think it is necessary to prepare a commission recommendation on the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances,” she allegedly wrote.

The result, according to The Guardian, was that legislation planned for 2014 was "kicked back until at least 2016, despite estimated health costs of €150bn per year in Europe from endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss, obesity and cryptorchidism – a condition affecting the genitals of baby boys."

Read more

‘Post-democracy’: TTIP talks could undermine human rights - UN official

On top of this, ahead of the meeting, AmCham had allegedly warned the EU of “wide-reaching implications” if the draft criteria came to be approved. According to The Guardian, AmCham wanted an EU impact study to set looser thresholds for acceptable exposure to endocrines, based on a substance’s potency.

Bas Eickhout, a Green member of the European Parliament, told The Guardian: "These documents offer convincing evidence that TTIP not only presents a danger for the future lowering of European standards, but that this is happening as we speak.”

The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) of the UK House of Commons is currently carrying out an inquiry into the proposed TTIP and its impacts on the environment and the developing world.

"We are very concerned that the US government has a long history of lobbying against EU action on chemicals, and that TTIP could provide a method for them to institutionalise this," EAC wrote in January, adding that the US approach to chemicals regulation is generally acknowledged to be "outdated and ineffective."

"Our strong belief that the inclusion of chemicals within TTIP will lower protection in the EU, and will further slowdown efforts to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals," the committee warned.

Earlier this year, CHEM Trust (a UK charity whose aim is to prevent manmade chemicals from causing long-term damage to wildlife or humans) and around 150 other civil society groups signed up to a joint statement against regulatory cooperation in TTIP.

Read more

US lawmakers agree to fast-track secretive international trade deals

"Civil society groups denounce ‘regulatory cooperation’ in the TTIP negotiations as a threat to democracy and an attempt to put the interests of big business before the protection of citizens, workers and the environment," the statement said.

According to the State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012 report, many endocrine-related diseases and disorders are currently on the rise. Global rates of endocrine-related cancers (breast, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, testicular and thyroid) have been increasing over the past 40-50 years, researchers say.

"Close to 800 chemicals are known or suspected to be capable of interfering with hormone receptors, hormone synthesis or hormone conversion. However, only a small fraction of these chemicals have been investigated in tests capable of identifying overt endocrine effects in intact organisms," the report stated.

Scientists warn that while numerous laboratory studies support the idea that chemical exposures contribute to endocrine disorders in humans, the "most sensitive window of exposure to EDCs is during critical periods of development, such as during fetal development and puberty."

Edited May 23, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

OpEdNews Op Eds 5/24/2015 at 22:00:42
Its More Than Monsanto

By Shelly Caref (about the author)

======================================

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Its-More-Than-Monsanto-by-Shelly-Caref-Agriculture_Basf_Bayer_Cancer-150524-981.html

Edited May 25, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

How Genetic Engineering Could Ruin the Human Race

=

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/how-genetic-engineering-could-ruin-the-human-race_052015

===============================

Japan’s Prime Minister Calls for ‘Robot Revolution': Hopes to ‘Spread the Use of Robotics to Every Corner of Society’

=

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/japans-prime-minister-calls-for-robot-revolution-hopes-to-spread-the-use-of-robotics-to-every-corner-of-our-society_052015

Edited May 30, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Number of African Countries Facing Severe Food Shortages Doubles

http://investmentwatchblog.com/number-of-african-countries-facing-severe-food-shortages-doubles/

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/number-of-african-countries-facing-severe-food-shortages-doubles/#y3k26xXHk5BieiGL.99

[Steven Gaal]

Nestle Caught Poisoning India’s Iconic Food With Lead

================================================

http://govtslaves.info/nestle-caught-poisoning-indias-iconic-food-with-lead/

[Steven Gaal]

Shampoo link to male infertility

=

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-188524/Shampoo-link-male-infertility.html

=

by BEEZY MARSH, Daily Mail

=

A common chemical, used in everything from shampoo to plastics, may be causing infertility in boys while they are still in the womb, it has emerged.

Mothers-to-be, simply by washing their hair or using make-up, may unwittingly be increasing the risk of their sons suffering defective sex organs, low sperm counts and even cancer.

Substances called phthalates - found in shampoos, conditioners, skin lotions and make-up, as well as in the environment generally - are linked to a dramatically increased rate of abnormalities and infertility.

A two-year experiment which exposed rats to high levels of phthalates has shown that the chemical disrupts the male hormone testosterone at a crucial stage of foetal development, doubling the rate of defects and leading to low sperm counts.

Researchers believe that in some cases, cell changes caused by the chemicals may also increase the risk of testicular cancer later in life.

Phthalates are often not listed as an ingredient so people do not even know they are using them.

The number of infant boys suffering the two most common forms of genital abnormality has doubled in 50 years.

Up to 4 per cent of baby boys suffer an undescended testicle and about 0.7 per cent are born with an abnormality called hypospadias, which means they cannot pass urine normally.

Rates of testicular cancer, which is diagnosed in 2,000 British men every year, have risen by 84 per cent since the late 1970s.

Pollution and 'gender bending' chemicals called oestrogens, found in pesticides, paints and plastics, have previously been suspected.

But the latest study by the Medical Research Council's human reproductive sciences unit in Edinburgh suggests phthalates are the culprit.

The findings will be presented at the British Fertility Society's annual conference in Aberdeen this week.

Professor Richard Sharpe, senior MRC research scientist, said yesterday that the chemicals may affect hormone levels throughout life.

"What we have found has previously been overlooked by toxicologists testing phthalates. There are fundamental abnormalities with the development of testicular cells and the consequence is you get these genital disorders."

Other studies had shown women of reproductive age had higher levels of phthalates in their bodies.

"It could be because they are using more cosmetics and effectively spreading these chemicals over themselves," he said.

Researchers exposed rats to phthalate levels estimated to be several hundred times higher than that humans would encounter. But the average human exposure to phthalates is not exactly known.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-188524/Shampoo-link-male-infertility.html#ixzz3cJGupJk0

Edited June 6, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Depopulation link (I suggest u add it as favorite list)

https://www.intellihub.com/category/depopulation-globalism/

________________________________________________________________________________________________

United Nations Climate Czar reveals depopulation plan for humanity

https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/

________________________________________________________________________________________________

(INTELLIHUB) — At a recent Climate One conference, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, made clear that a leading solution to global warming includes extreme depopulation.

Speaking to the organization’s founder Greg Dalton, Figueres had a carefully worded yet startling answer to his question on world population.

Dalton: A related issue is fertility rates and population, a lot of people in energy and environmental circles don’t want to go near that because its politically charged, it’s not their issue, but isn’t it true that stopping the rise in population could be one of the biggest levers in driving down the rising green houses gases.

Figueres: We all know, we expect 9 billion by 2050, so yes obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources

Dalton: So is 9 billion the forgone conclusion.. no way to change that?

Figueres: Again there is pressure in the system to go towards that, we can get them to change though, we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding the planetary carrying capacity.

How the United Nations plans to unilaterally “change the numbers” isn’t revealed but statements by other leading globalists, including Bill Gates famous depopulation remarks at a TED Talks event, point to some sort of program that includes vaccines, infertility, and the killing of a portion of the world’s population.

First we’ve got population, the world today has 6.8 billion people, that’s headed to 9 billion.

Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.

Christiana Figueres’s recent comments simply provide more evidence and context to the United Nations depopulation agenda that has been in planning for decades.

Video courtesy of NextNewsNetwork

[Steven Gaal]

Belgian Doctors Are Euthanizing Patients Without Their Consent

=

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Belgian_Doctors_Are_Euthanizing_Patients_Without_Their_Consent/44640/0/38/38/Y/M.html

[Steven Gaal]

Monsanto Protection Act Part 2? New Bill Introduced Spells Bad News For GMO Activists

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Monsanto_Protection_Act_Part_2%3F_New_Bill_Introduced_Spells_Bad_News_For_GMO_Activists/44698/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Source: Collective Evolution

=

A couple of years ago, a bill was introduced (H.R. 933) allowing big biotech corporations, like Monsanto, to override United States federal courts on the issue of planting experimental genetically engineered crops all across the US. This rendered the government powerless when it came to stopping other biotechnology corporations from planting and harvesting. The measure shields sellers of genetically modified seeds from lawsuits, even if the resulting crops cause harm. As a result, the public labelled this bill “The Monsanto Protection Act.”

This time, a bill has been introduced, dubbed the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act Of 2015.” Proposed by United States Congressman Mike Pompeo, the bill is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

“Activists in nearly 30 states are considering legislation that would require government warning labels on food products containing ingredients derived from biotechnology. These common ingredients, which include corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, are safe to eat. Unfortunately, activists are demanding an official notice that food may contain these ingredients. If consumers are misled to believe the food supply isn’t safe, there is little incentive to innovate or grow these important crops.” (source)

He goes on to state that:

“More than 100 research projects over 25 years involving dozens of independent research groups have affirmed and reaffirmed the safety of genetically modified ingredients. We’re seeking a common sense, science-based solution that will protect consumers, facilitate informed consumer choices, as well as guard against a costly, unnecessary and inefficient state-by-state food labeling system.” (source)
The Other Side Of The Coin And Why This Bill Is Ridiculous
“As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe.” –Jane Goodall (source)

Sure, as the congressman points out, there have been many publications outlining the supposed safety of genetically modified foods. At the same time, there have been just as many publications outlining their potential danger, which makes it clear that they should not be approved completely safe for consumption. The science alone warrants a label, why is this research constantly ignored?

“The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.” – David Suzuki, geneticist, academic, environmental activist (source)

For example, here is a study, published by Environmental Sciences Europe, linking GMOs to cancer and liver/kidney damage, as well as severe hormonal disruption. You can read more about that story here. (( SEE TOP LINK ))

Here is a study a study recently published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September that found a “very strong correlation” between GMOs and two dozen diseases. You can read more about that story here.

I could probably post 100 studies, but I’m not going to do your research for you. Feel free to browse through our site or do some research on your own. Numerous concerns have been raised with GMOs that deserve serious attention, and, as Suzuki states in the quote above, should have our food industry/governments labeling these products so consumers know what they are eating.

There are so many problems associated with consumption of these crops, and that doesn’t even include the pesticides that go hand in and with GMOs. These have been linked to cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and much more.

Here are some studies showing what happens to your body when you switch to organic food.

A worldwide movement is currently taking place that has seen millions of activists gather from all over the world, voicing their desire to have a mandatory GMO label on all food. This would provide consumers with an option, a choice, and the awareness that their food was genetically modified. Seems harmless, doesn’t it? After all, nobody can really argue against the fact that we should have a right to know what is in our food, so why not just label it? More than 60 countries across the globe already require mandatory GMO labeling, and it’s time for Canada and the United States to catch up, but it’s not an easy process.

I’m going to leave you with this:

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.” – Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario

You can learn more about that book and what it’s about, HERE. ((SEE TOP LINK))

Edited June 23, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

America’s third-world government dumps fluoride in drinking water

while Ethiopia seeks to remove toxin from water to protect public health

=================================================================================

https://www.intellihub.com/americas-third-world-government-dumps-fluoride-in-drinking-water-while-ethiopia-seeks-to-remove-toxin-from-water-to-protect-public-health/

[Steven Gaal]

Common Chemicals May Trigger Cancer

=====================================

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940404000173

A global taskforce of 174 scientists from leading research centers across 28 countries studied the link between mixtures of commonly encountered chemicals and the development of cancer.

The study selected 85 chemicals not considered carcinogenic to humans and found 50 supported key cancer-related mechanisms at exposures found in the environment today.

Read more: at above link

Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

By WTStaff July 1, 2015

Roundup’s Lesser-Known Cousin Is Coming to a Farm Near You

Jason Best, TakePart
Waking Times

It’s the next wave in a revolution of GMO crops—and it’s happening right under our noses.

One of the world’s leading groups of cancer experts has just classified the industrial herbicide 2,4-D as a possible human carcinogen, and that’s got one of the world’s biggest ag-tech companies in an uproar. But why should we care about some corporate kerfuffle?

Because the U.S. is about to be deluged with 2,4-D—an herbicide similar to Roundup but lacking the comfort of a consumer-facing, trademarked name.

This week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, released the results of its evaluation of three agricultural chemicals, including 2,4-D. The agency’s designation of the herbicide as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” is based on a review of the existing scientific evidence, which it deems “inadequate” in humans and “limited” in animal experiments—hence the emphasis on “possibly” carcinogenic. Nevertheless, the agency says, “There is strong evidence that 2,4-D induces oxidative stress, a mechanism that can operate in humans, and moderate evidence that 2,4-D causes immunosuppression, based on in vivo and in vitro studies.”

No surprise: Ag-tech giant Dow AgroSciences has reacted swiftly, calling the findings hogwash. The company says the IARC’s conclusions are “inconsistent with government findings in nearly 100 countries,” according to the Midland Daily News.

“No herbicide has been more thoroughly studied, and no national regulatory body in the world considers 2,4-D a carcinogen,”

a Dow AgroSciences spokesman said in a statement.

So, Why Should You Care? It’s not as though Dow is an impartial observer in all this. The company has millions of dollars in profit at stake in keeping farmers from worrying too much about dumping countless pounds of 2,4-D on their fields. Dow is in the midst of rolling out the next generation of genetically modified crops—its Enlist Duo patented line of crops—which are engineered to withstand heavy application of 2,4-D as well as the herbicide glyphosate, itself deemed a possible human carcinogen by the IARC a few months ago. It’s all part of a dramatic escalation of the ag-tech industry’s mad-scientist warfare on Mother Nature. In the late 1990s, Monsanto “revolutionized” agriculture with its introduction of Roundup Ready crops, which were genetically modified to tolerate being soaked in glyphosate.

American consumers appear to be growing ever more wary of GMO crops, with an increasingly vocal number demanding the government step in and require companies to label any food that contains GMO ingredients. But the absence of such labeling thus far has arguably allowed Big Ag to engineer one of the most sweeping overhauls of agricultural production in the nation’s history—right under our noses. From virtually nothing just 20 years ago, today a staggering 90 percent of corn and 93 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified.

How has that worked out? As farmers have become more reliant than ever on glyphosate, they’ve unwittingly created a scourge of “superweeds” that have naturally developed their own resistance to the herbicide. Just as the overreliance of the livestock industry on antibiotics has given rise to the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, some areas of the country are now plagued by weeds that glyphosate alone just can’t kill.

Big Ag’s answer to this crisis (which only seems logical if you’re, well, a company whose profits depend on selling massive amounts of GMO seeds and the chemicals to go with them) has been to ramp up the chemical assault. Hence, Dow’s Enlist Duo, which combines glyphosate with 2,4-D in a bid to combat those resilient monster weeds.

According to the USDA, the use of Dow’s new crop “system” will result in a tripling of the amount of 2,4-D being sprayed by 2020, and the increase could be as much as sixfold. Agricultural communities in areas where 2,4-D-resistant crops are planted would be exposed to eight times the amount of the “possible human carcinogen” they are now. Nevertheless, the EPA in April expanded its approval of the use of Enlist Duo across an additional nine states, from North Dakota to Louisiana, bringing the total number of states where the chemical cocktail is approved to 15.

That may not sound like mad science to Dow—or to the EPA, for that matter—but it does to plenty of others, including Mary Ellen Kustin, a senior policy analyst for the Environmental Working Group.

“We have known for decades that 2,4-D is harmful to the environment and human health, especially for the farmers and farmworkers applying these chemicals to crops,”

Kustin said in a

statement

.

“Now that farmers are planting 2,4-D-tolerant GMO crops, this herbicide is slated to explode in use much the way glyphosate did with the first generation of GMO crops. And we know from experience—and basic biology—that weeds will soon grow resistant to these herbicides, making GMO crop growers only more dependent on the next chemical fix.”

Edited July 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Birth control goes high tech, fertility chip comes with remote control

By Rhodi Lee, Tech Times | July 8, 7:42 AM

Birth control goes high tech, fertility chip comes with remote control

By Rhodi Lee, Tech Times | July 8, 7:42 AM

A Massachusetts-based startup that specializes in long-term implantable drug delivery technology is developing an implantable birth control chip that can be switched on and off using a remote control.


(Photo : Monik Markus)

Women in ancient times are known to use acacia leaves, lint and honey to block sperm as a method of birth control but this rudimentary method of preventing pregnancy has gone a long way with the advent of new and more effective means of contraception available today including the use of pills, patches and intrauterine device (IUD).

Yet it appears that there are still more room for improvement when it comes to contraceptives. A startup based in Lexington, Massachusetts is developing a new method of birth control that is too futuristic when compared with using leaves, lint and honey. The company is developing a contraceptive implant that is made up of a fertility chip that can be conxxxxxed using a remote control.

MicroCHIPS, which specializes in long-term implantable drug delivery technology, has come up with a birth control chip that is implanted under the skin of the upper arm, abdomen or buttocks, and can be turned on and off using a wireless remote control.

"Microchips' technology is based on proprietary reservoir arrays that are used to store and protect potent drugs within the body for long periods of time," MicroCHIPs explained its technology on its website. "Individual device reservoirs can be opened on demand or on a predetermined schedule to precisely control drug release or sensor activation."

The device, which measures, 20 x 20 x 7 millimeters, dispenses 30 micrograms of the hormone levonorgestrel, which is also used in other contraceptive products, per day. The dosage, however, can be adjusted remotely by doctors.

Unlike with women using other birth control implants such as IUD who need to see their doctor to have the device removed when they feel ready to conceive, women with the implanted fertility chip could simply turn it off using the remote control should they feel ready to have a baby. They can turn it on again if they do not wish to get pregnant.

MicroCHIPS' fertility chip is also designed for long term use. While there are currently no hormonal birth control that lasts longer than five years, the device is designed to last up to 16 years after which it could be removed.

Although the high tech contraceptive device is still under development, it is being readied for preclinical testing next year with the objective of making it available for public use by 2018. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports the development of the device under its Family Planning program.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal