Monsanto Gives Up On GM Crops in Europe, Pursues Patenting of Conventional Crops

The world’s most evil corporation, Monsanto, has announced it will cease trying to introduce any new genetically-modified (GM) crops into Europe following years of widespread public opposition to the controversial and untested technology. Instead, the multinational biotechnology behemoth will re-focus its efforts on controlling the conventional seed market in the European Union (EU), an outlandish move that proves the seed giant is still determined, in one way or another, to dominate global agriculture.

Monsanto’s President and Managing Director for Europe, Jose Manuel Madero, recently told Reutersin a phone interview that his company will be withdrawing all existing approval requests for new GMOs in Europe within the next few months. These include five pending approval requests for at least one new variety of GM corn (maize), as well as GM soybeans and GM sugar beets. As of this writing, there is only one GM crop, Monsanto’s MON810 maize, currently approved for cultivation anywhere in Europe.

No matter how hard Monsanto and various others in the biotechnology industry have tried in years past to force GMOs on Europe, the result has almost always been the same: failure. The people of Europe have repeatedly expressed loudly and clearly that they do not want to eat GMOs, and the European Commission (EC) has tended to align its approval process for GMOs with this public sentiment in mind. Thus, GMOs continue to remain largely absent from the European market, with the exception of widely-used animal feed.

“(The requests) have been going nowhere fast for several years,” says Brandon Mitchener, a Monsanto spokesman, about the company’s failed efforts to force GMOs on Europe. “There’s no end in sight.”

Monsanto: If we can’t force Europeans to accept GMOs, we will instead take over their conventional crops

This is good news for Europeans, of course, who will finally have the opportunity to rest a little easier as far as the integrity of their food supply is concerned — this is with the exception of GM animal feed, of course, which is currently imported into the country from places like the U.S. and South America at a rate of more than 30 million metric tons yearly, according to Reuters.

But what Europeans will now have to worry about, sadly, is Monsanto’s new pursuit of controlling their conventional crops. As we here at NaturalNews have been reporting on recently, Monsanto has been taking advantage of a little-known loophole in European patent law that allows the company to literally draw patents on natural crops like broccoli and green beans.

“In the coming weeks, around a dozen new patents will be granted (to Monsanto), covering species such as broccoli, onions, melons, lettuce and cucumber,” explains the food freedom watchdog coalitionNo Patents on Seeds! about Monsanto’s new business approach. “Monsanto and Syngenta already own more than 50 percent of seed varieties of tomato, paprika and cauliflower registered in the EU.”

In other words, since it could not have its way with GMO’s in Europe, Monsanto simply turned to the earth’s natural bounty and gradually claimed it as its own — and the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to facilitate this takeover of the natural food supply in Europe, mostly because the European people remain in the dark about what is actually happening to their agricultural system.

You can help fight Monsanto’s takeover of the European food supply by signing the No Patents on Seeds! online petition:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Soy-Based Lunch Kills 22 Children in India: Have GMOs and Pesticides Become Instant Killers?

At least 22 children in India have died as a result of eating soy-based school lunches served to them in the country’s Bihar state, according to new reports. The tainted lunches, which were loaded with genetically-modified (GM) soybeans and pesticide chemical residues, were given to the student victims as part of a U.K.-based government meal program similar to the one currently being implemented in the U.S. by Michelle Obama for American public schoolchildren.

The U.K.’s Independent reports that the culprit meals contained a blend of rice, soybeans and potatoes, and had apparently been doused with an unidentified new cooking oil that was later determined to be tainted with toxic crop insecticides. Early on, the school’s cook warned her superiors that the new oil appeared “discolored and dodgy,” but her concerns were ignored when school officials insisted that the oil was safe.

Not long after students ate the first meal served with the new oil, dozens of them began to vomit profusely and some developed severe diarrhea. Several of them had to be immediately rushed to the hospital for emergency care, which sent the school’s headmaster running for the hills — according to reports, she literally fled the school after first learning that students were becoming ill from eating the food.

“We feel that some kind of insecticide was either accidentally or intentionally mixed in the food, but that will be clear through investigations,” said R.K. Singh, the medical superintendent at the local children’s hospital in Patna, Bihar’s capital. “We prepared antidotes and treated the children for organic phosphorus poisoning,” he added, noting that early tests identified the presence of a toxic organophosphate chemical in the tainted food.

But the school itself appears to have dropped the ball in helping its sick children in the immediate aftermath of the poisoning. Reports indicate that it took about 15 hours after the first child fell ill to evacuate the rest. It was only after 17 children died that school officials began to take the situation seriously by trying to actually help the children.

After learning about the school’s mismanagement of the situation, many parents began rioting in the streets and demanding answers. Protesting villagers reportedly set ablaze four police vehicles out of anger, and police reinforcements had to be sent in from elsewhere to quell the unrest. In the aftermath of the disaster, Bihar has offered to provide compensation of 200,000 rupees, or about $3,500, per dead child to affected families.

All government food programs, including those in US, a threat to children

Though this incident took place in one of India’s poorest regions, where corruption is rampant, the moral of the story is that this type of situation could happen anywhere. In the U.S., for instance, where the federal government is currently seizing control of school lunch programs nationwide, children are being fed some of the very same soy- and chemical-laden garbage for lunch.

Just last year, prisoners in Illinois actually filed a lawsuit against the state for serving them too much soy, which was causing them to become seriously ill. And a district court judge has since acknowledged the merits of the case, recognizing that high amount of soy, and particularly GM soy, can lead to severe gastrointestinal problems, hypothyroidism, infections, and even death.

“In the U.S., we allow Big Agra to provide insecticide laced GMOs for our children everyday,” wrote one concerned and insightful commenter on a piece published by The New York Times (NYT). “We have no idea how much damage this stuff is doing to our children or the rest of the humans who are being slowly poisoned for the benefit of high profits and obscenely paid CEOS.”

“At least the Indian government intends to prosecute the ones who did this. We (in the U.S.) put them at the head of the FDA and give them complete immunity through specially drafted legislation. This is our shame and our tragedy.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/034800_prisoners_lawsuit_soy.html

Soy Products Linked to Cancer in Lab Tests

As time goes by, people are steadily waking up to some of the proven facts about soy, such as the knowledge that most soy is GMO. If that is the case, one can deduce that to solve the problem one can simply buy organic soy products. While it’s true that organic soy is healthier for you than GMO soy, there are other facts about soy that pose serious health risks. Here are four facts that debunk soy as a healthy food choice.

Four reasons to phase-out most soy products on the market

1. Soybeans contain large amounts of toxins.Unlike with other foods where any toxins are destroyed or deactivated during cooking, the toxins in soybeans remain intact. Some of these toxins, or “enzyme inhibitors,” block the actions of enzymes needed for the digestion of protein. The enzyme inhibitors in soy are linked to cancer in lab animal tests. Test animals fed enzyme inhibitors developed enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including pancreatic cancer.

2. Soybeans can interfere with nutrient absorption during digestion. This is because soy is high in phytic acid, which has been shown to block absorption of minerals calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc.

3. Soybeans are among the most highly pesticide-contaminated foods on the market. As you probably know, pesticides are a toxic, distorted-energy-spin substance, linked to a variety of ailments. Soy products also contain high levels of aluminum, a life-force sapping heavy metal which does not belong in foods that we put in our bodies, as it has bio-accumulative negative health effects. The aluminum in soy comes from the aluminum tanks in which the beans are acid washed and heat-processed.

4. Soybeans contain haemagglutinin, nitrites, soy protein isolates, and goitrogens. Each of these substances has a particular negative effect on your health. Haemagglutinin is a blood clot-promoting substance which causes red blood cells to clump together. Nitrites are powerful carcinogens which form when soybeans are spray-dried (carcinogens are potential cancer-causing agents). Soy protein isolates have been shown to enlarge the pancreas and thyroid gland and also increase fatty acid deposits in the liver. Goitrogens are found in soy-based foods in large amounts. They block thyroid hormone production. All of the above substances have the effect of disrupting body chemistry and hormones.

Wait a minute! I thought soy was good for me

Like me, you’ve probably been under the impression that soy was healthy for years. In which case, the truth turns out to be shocking as it was to me. And still, proponents of soy will assert that Asian cultures have been safely eating soy for thousands of years. However, this has been debunked as only a partial truth. Asians began eating soybeans 2,500 years ago only after figuring out how to ferment it. Ancient Asian cultures knew that soybeans contain multiple toxic substances even after cooking. It is only through the process of fermentation that toxins in soy are safely neutralized.

Soy: Healthy in the right form

The distorted half-truth about soy having beneficial, health-enhancing properties is actually based on fact. The truth however, is that the beneficial properties of soy are only made available during fermentation when a special mold grows on the beans. Fermentation has the dual purpose of making the nutrients in soy bio-available, while simultaneously destroying the toxins.

Fermented soy products include tempeh, miso, and natto. As for tofu, the toxic enzyme inhibitors live in the soaking liquid around the tofu, not the tofu curd itself. Thus, the toxins in tofu are reduced in quantity but not eliminated.

Sources for this article include:

http://thedeliciousrevolution.com/cleanse/why-avoid-soy/

http://www.optimumchoices.com/Soy.htm

http://www.mindbodyhealth.com/avoidsoy.htm

First Ever Non-GMO Meat and Egg Product Label Hits The Market

Healthy shoppers in Northern California are getting the first taste of certified biotech-free meat and egg products at the grocery store, thanks to the valiant efforts of the Non-GMO Project in successfully convincing the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow certified non-GMO labels to be placed on foods within its regulatory jurisdiction.

According to a recent press release issued by theNon-GMO Project, the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has finally agreed to allow third-party certifying organizations like the Non-GMO Project to certify meat and egg products that meet its strict integrity standards, as long as the claims made are truthful, accurate and not misleading.

Most of the food on the market today is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which does not require this type of pre-approval of third-party labels. The USDA, on the other hand, which regulates meat and liquid egg products, has not traditionally held any third-party labeling standards, and had previously denied requests made by meat companies like Mary’s Chicken to allow non-GMO labels because of this.

With the help of the Non-GMO Project, however, Mary’s Chicken and others in the industry have been able to work with regulators to carefully develop non-GMO labeling standards that are honest, accurate and transparent, three things health-conscious individuals are looking for these days. And with their goal finally achieved, consumers will now be able to identify the highest quality meat and egg products while shopping.

“It was a thoughtful process, that’s most certainly the case,” says Claire Herminjard, head of pastured beef company Mindful Meats, about working with the USDA on non-GMO labeling standards, as quoted by TakePart.com. “They took their time to do their due diligence to understand how the Non-GMO Project verifies products – what their standards are, how they control that and how they audit it.”

Rigorous testing methods ensure Non-GMO Project verified meat, eggs free of transgenic contaminants

However, meat and eggs cannot simply be tested on their own for GMO content because the animals that produced them may or may not have been fed GM soy, corn, and other types of transgenic feed. The process is much more complicated, in other words, and in order to properly certify such products, the Non-GMO Project had to establish a more thorough assessment and evaluation process.

“Meat and eggs cannot be tested themselves for GMOs,” says Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project in a recent statement posted at the organization’s website. “That’s why we test the animal feed. The supplemental language will help clarify that.”

Now that the details of the new regulatory process have been fully fleshed out, meat companies like Mindful Meats and Mary’s Chicken, egg company Hidden Villa Ranch and others are beginning to sell certified non-GMO products on the consumer market. And there are sure to be many other companies with similar philosophies that will join their ranks in the coming months.

“It means everything to have this label and we’re very thankful that FSIS worked with us to get this approved,” says David Pittman from Mary’s Chicken, which currently has 17 Non-GMO Project verified products on the market and many more in the process of being verified.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nongmoproject.org

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/21/first-non-gmo-meat-label

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com

6,000 Genetically-Modified Sugar Beets Destroyed in Oregon

According to new reports, a total of 6,000 GM sugar beets planted in fields in southern Oregon were found uprooted in recent days. On June 8, roughly 1,000 GM sugar beets were found destroyed in fields leased and managed by the private, Switzerland-based biotechnology company Syngenta, while another 5,000 plants on a different plot, also owned by Syngenta, were found destroyed on June 11, just three days later.

Since the crops were GM, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) immediately got involved with the case, declaring this brave act of ecological conservation to be “economic sabotage.” And those involved with the investigation have been timid about releasing any details, expressing fears that “copycats” might try to take similar action at other GM fields in Oregon and elsewhere — we simply cannot add any further risks to the multi-billion dollar “Frankenfood” supply now can we?

Meanwhile, biotech giant Monsanto’s blatant negligence with a long-abandoned GM wheat crop recently led to real economic sabotage in the form of widespread contamination of the general wheat supply. A conventional wheat field in eastern Oregon, in case you missed it, was recently found to have been contaminated by illegal GM wheat traits, a discovery that very quickly disrupted the entire export market for wheat in the U.S. and put the livelihoods of thousands of American farmers at risk.

But the FBI is nowhere to be found in pursuing and prosecuting the culprit in this debacle. No, Monsanto and others in the biotech industry that are responsible for polluting the entire earth with their transgenic atrocities are shielded from all liability for their repeated acts of economic sabotage, while freedom fighters who intervene on behalf of humanity are relegated to the ranks of terrorists.

“When GM pollen blows into a non-GM farmer’s fields and irreversibly contaminates his crop with ‘biopollution,’ who does the law side with?” asks Sayer Ji in a recent piece for GreenMedInfo.com.

“When Monsanto’s unapproved and therefore illegal GM wheat is found years after open field trials growing freely in an Oregon wheat field, the entire state crop’s export fate is held in limbo, jeopardizing the present and future living of thousands of farmers and their dependents, with Monsanto receiving little more than a reprimand, followed by rapid USDA assurance that despite a lack of approval their GM wheat is ‘safe.'”

Syngenta’s GM sugar beets are not even legal in Switzerland

One major irony in the Syngenta case is that the company’s GM sugar beets are not even legal in its own home country of Switzerland. Americans are expected to consume the company’s poisonous “Frankenbeets,” which received government approval apart from any adequate environment and human safety data, but the people of Switzerland are protected from this agricultural assault because of strict GMO regulation.

“Syngenta is committing acts that are criminal in its own country, yet our government invites them,” wrote one commenter on an OregonLive.com article discussing the destruction of the beets. “I thank you rebels! I applaud you for your action and your bravery.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.spokesman.com

http://www.kgw.com

http://www.rodale.com/genetically-engineered-sugar-beets-0

Over $30M Spent Last Year on Lobbying to Keep GMOs Hidden in Foods

Guess who spends the most money lobbying on agricultural lobbying? If you answered, “Monsanto,” you’re correct. Most of their efforts, of course, are focused on lobbying for GMOs — to keep them legal and keep them hidden in foods.

Do you know how much money Monsanto spent on lobbying in 2012?

The answer is nearly $6 million!

And in a close second, the American Farm Bureau spent $5.7 million on lobbying in 2012.

The Natural News infographic shown below reveals even more details about who’s spending the most money lobbying for GMOs and other conventional agriculture “favors” from Washington.

In 2012 alone, companies spent over $30 million ”influencing” Congress on agricultural issues, including making sure they didn’t pass legislation that would label GMOs or outlaw them altogether. Is it any wonder that the United States of America is one of the very last nations in the world to either ban GMOs outright or require their labeling on foods?

As the second infographic below shows, 64 countries require GMO labeling.

And so far, fifty percent of U.S. states have introduced GMO labeling bills of one kind or another. So the states want it, but the federal government keeps blocking it.
Why is the USA the big holdout on honest food labeling? Could it be because the biotech industry keeps paying off all the politicians?

Monsanto: GMOs Supposedly Identical to Natural Crops On Safety, but Unique for Patent Enforcement?

The biotechnology industry has pulled a fast one with regards to the legitimacy of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Straddling both sides of the fence, multinational corporations like Monsanto continually claim that their GM monstrosities are “substantially equivalent” to natural crops when it comes to their safety. And yet at the very same time, this ilk also insists that its products are uniquely different from natural crops when it comes to enforcing its patents, a clearly hypocritical and duplicitous stance that proves the illegitimacy of the entire GMO business model.

On its corporate website, Monsanto clearly expresses its opinion that GMOs are no different from natural crops, and thus do not need to be independently safety tested. This a highly convenient position for the company to take, as it facilitates the unlimited propagation of untested GMOs under the guise that they are indistinguishable from any other crop in the natural world. And this is Monsanto’s official position on GMOs, mind you, and the one that the company stands by in defending its refusal to conduct long-term GMO safety tests on humans.

But if GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs, then how can Monsanto hold enforceable patents on any of its products? After all, GMOs and non-GMOs are exactly the same, right? Not exactly. When it comes to enforcing patents on its “Frankencrops,” Monsanto holds a much different position on the substantial equivalence of its products and natural products. For purposes of generating tens of billions of dollars annually from patent royalties, Monsanto adamantly insists that GMOs are uniquely different from non-GMOs.

GMOs are both the same as and different than natural crops, in the twisted world of Monsanto

So which is it? Are GMOs the same as non-GMOs or are they different? There is no single answer to this question in the eyes of Monsanto, which shifts its answer to accommodate its own corporate interests. But in reality, there can only be one true answer to this question, and science answers it for us quite clearly: GMOs are metabolized by the body differently than natural crops, and almost always carry with them harmful side effects.

It is probably not all that surprising that this glaring disparity has yet to be addressed by the mainstream media. But it just goes to show how deeply corrupted the regulatory bodies of our country and the media outlets that openly abet them have become, allowing Monsanto to play logical gymnastics on the GMO substantial equivalency issue without question. This insanely obvious conspiracy needs to be brought to the world’s attention, but will any other news source besides NaturalNews have the integrity and courage to bring it to light?

“Substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific,” explains a 1999 study on the fraud of substantial equivalence that was published in the journal Nature. “It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx

http://earthopensource.org

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

Organic Farmers Go To War With Monsanto In Court, and Lose

It has become quite obvious that organic farmers have been taken advantage of by food giant Monsanto for some time now.

In a court case involving organic farmers and seed producers, suits filed against Monsanto didn’t play out as planned.

This case was put before the United States court system as a precautionary measure for farmers in the case that genetically engineered crops “accidentally” end up on organic farmland.

The GMO spreading effect

For example, when corn pollination begins, its byproduct (the pollen) is estimated to drift many of miles from where it originated. At these distances, there’s no telling how many other crops can be affected.

These altered organisms do not stay within the confines of their land, and because of this, many organic farmers are being hit with GMO crops that they didn’t want in the first place.

It seems that the United States Supreme Court is refusing to help those against Monsanto, which in turn, is not playing out well for many other organic food producers across the country.

Monsanto claims no responsibility, and is actually demanding payment from the farmers who have been impacted by this cross-pollination effect.

This food giant often sues farmers who grow (not by choice) the company’s patented and genetically engineered crops without paying the so-called “owed royalties.”

Legal battles involving GMOs are nothing new

The courtroom is not an unfamiliar place for Monsanto, but luckily, farmers are starting to fight back!

Dozens of organic food producers have stood up to fight against GMOs, and it has gained worldly attention; yet, it has been a very tough battle.

On June 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit became the most recent court to buddy up with Monsanto. As the facts continue to surface, it is obvious that the power behind this corporation is extremely immense, and it can all be tracked right back to Washington.

The Monsanto Protection Act (as written by Monsanto), was signed into law by President Obama after he had promised back in 2007 that this would never happen.

This is a classic David vs. Goliath scenario, but what most people don’t realize is that the majority of the power lies within the people of this country.

If the people cease demand for GMOs, then production will stop – simple as that. Each time an individual buys a product that ties back into the GMO cycle, money goes to those in control.

It really is insane

If thought about logically, this entire situation is pretty ridiculous. Monsanto is literally infecting other people’s land, but in turn, is not claiming responsibility.

How is this not seen as unfair?

The truth is that this company has the billions of dollars to come out on top nearly every time, that is unless people begin to wake up and assess this entire situation with a different approach.

Organic farmers who work very hard to provide health conscious people with quality food are being targeted and dismantled by these powerful forces – it’s simply not fair.

If you are among those who chose to eat organically, this should anger you. Your health, and the health of your family are at risk – so it is time to act!

You can start by not supporting companies that utilize their products – a list of these exact companies can be found in the resource section below.

Please share this article if you want to help in the fight to save our food and the health of our planet.

Sources for this article include:

http://grist.org/news/organic-farmers-lose-court-battle-with-monsanto/

http://www.reuters.com

http://thegoldenlightchannel.com

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines.shtml?/headlines02/0219-06.htm

About the author:
Joey Cardillo has been heavily involved in the online health community for over three years. When his company Versatile Health LLC (www.versatilehealth.com) was launched in 2010, he began his journey into the online world of health blogging. Since then, he and his business partner (Chris Reichert) have published #1 best selling books on Amazon, and have been able to help people from all over the world gain better health with simple lifestyle reformations. Joey studied journalism in college and received his BA in Mass Communications in 2010. A year later in 2011, he decided to become a certified FDN (Functional Diagnostic Nutritionist). His FDN training allows him to correct common ailments with his clients by utilizing natural protocols.

How the Farm Bill Could Undermine the Future of GMO Labeling by Individual States

The Republicrats in the U.S. Congress have once again betrayed their constituents by voting down an amendment to the upcoming Farm Bill that would have openly recognized the right of individual states to choose whether or not to label genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). And even though the federal government does not actually have the power to regulate the labeling decisions of individual states, the failure of Senate Amendment 965 to garner enough support could end up undermining future GMO labeling initiatives.

As reported by Katherine Paul over at OrganicConsumers.org, the Senate on May 23 voted down S.AMDT.965, also known as the Sanders Amendment, in a vote of 27-71, effectively killing what would have been recognition at the federal level that individual states already have the right to mandate the proper labeling of foods, beverages, and other edible products that contain GMOs. Each individual state already has the right under the U.S. Constitution to label GMOs if they so choose, regardless of the amendment’s passage, but S.AMDT.965 would have expressly acknowledged this to avoid confusion.

But with typical food industry pandering, a majority of state Senators rejected the amendment, which leaves the future of GMO food labeling hanging in the balance. States still have the right to pass GMO labeling laws in accordance with the Constitution, of course. But the rejection of S.AMDT.965 creates the illusion that this is somehow not the case, as language in the amendment presupposes that states need some kind of magical “permit” from the federal government in order to pass GMO labeling legislation, a permit that will now not be granted.

Federal government has no legal authority to block states from passing GMO labeling legislation

No such permit exists, however. In fact, the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over individual states as it pertains to GMO labeling, as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the individual states and the people. In other words, the federal government itself does not have the necessary “permit” to offer any input into the matter whatsoever – the individual states are free to decide for themselves how to handle the GMO labeling issue without federal government interference.

“The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution firmly establishes states’ rights and many states represented by members of the House Agriculture Committee use their state sovereignty to enact laws that protect their citizens from invasive pests, livestock diseases, maintain quality standards for dairy products, ensure food safety and unadulterated seed products,” said Representative Jeff Denham (R-Ca.) recently in regards to the so-called “King Amendment,” an ominous Farm Bill rider that specifically seeks to strip individual states of their ability to regulate food and other consumer goods.

“The biotech industry knows that it’s only a matter of time before Washington State, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and other states pass GMO labeling laws,” adds Ronnie Cummins, National Director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). “Rather than fight this battle in every state, Monsanto is trying to manipulate Congress to pass a Farm Bill that will wipe out citizens’ rights to state laws intended to protect their health and safety.”

You can view a list of the Congressional traitors that voted against S.AMDT.965 here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/vote/103296

You can also continue to contact your Congressional representatives and urge them to reject both amendments and riders to the Farm Bill that destroy sovereignty and food freedom, and urge support for those that strengthen food freedom and environmental protections. FoodConsumer.org has a helpful list of talking points you can use when contacting your Congressmen:
http://www.foodconsumer.org

Sources for this article include:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP0965:

http://www.foodconsumer.org

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27587.cfm

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

GMOs Linked to Blood Cell Disorders and Leukemia (New Study)

Widespread industry claims that the altered traits of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) do not persist in food and are thus harmless to humans have once again been proven to be false. A new study published in the open-access, peer-reviewed Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases has revealed that GMOs indeed damage and toxify human blood cells, and can consequently lead to the development of deadly blood diseases like anemia and leukemia.

Researchers from the Department of Genetics and Morphology and the Institute of Biological Sciencesat the University of Brasilia learned this after feeding test mice various doses of Cry proteins, or Cry toxins, which are insect-killing agents purposely engineered into many GM crops. After administering just one dose of these toxins, the team observed the development of a number of different blood abnormalities, many of which became progressively worse in the week following the single dose.

Even at the lowest dose tested, Cry toxins were observed to induce damage to bone marrow cells and cause anemia, the latter of which is marked by a lack of red blood cells and hemoglobin in the system. And this was in vertebrate mammals, a species that Monsanto and the rest of the biotechnology cabal has long claimed is not affected by Bt toxin and its resultant toxic byproducts. In the end, damage caused by Cry toxin exposure was found to result in severe hematological malignancies such as leukemia, a deadly type of blood cancer.

“[O]ur study demonstrated that Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A induced hematotoxicity, particularly to the erythroid lineage,” wrote the authors. “This finding corroborates literature that demonstrated that alkali-solubilized Bt spore-crystals caused in vitro hemolysis in cell lines of rat, mouse, sheep, horse, and human erythrocytes and suggested that the plasma membrane of susceptible cells (erythrocytes, in this case) may be the primary target for these toxins.”

Long-term exposure to GM toxins proven to cause systemic damage to human health

Beyond their inherent toxicity to humans, Cry toxins were also found to activate this toxicity much more easily than previously believed. Rather than have to be exposed to an alkaline pH in the digestive tract of a susceptible species in order to become active, Cry toxins were found to elicit their adverse effects after merely being exposed to distilled water. Cry toxins were also found to bioaccumulate in the body over time, causing progressively more damage in the long term.

“Taking into account the increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet, our results suggest that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals,” added the authors.

In other words, there is no sound scientific basis for the use of such toxins in food products consumed by humans, as they are clearly unsafe. Put another way, if independent studies such as this one had been required to be conducted prior to the approval of GM crops with Bt traits, such crops never would have been approved in the first place, as it would have been abundantly evident from the start that they are not safe for human consumption.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia

http://digitaljournal.com/article/350126

http://www.activistpost.com