(NaturalNews) There must be a new motto in Corporate America: 'If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em and then beat 'em.'That's one way to explain why mega-corporations like Unilever are scrambling to purchase all the hip, green start-ups, so they can control the world (or at least a... [...]
(NaturalNews) When she actually makes public appearances and isn't coughing or fainting, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton loves to pretend to be some kind of political outsider who sides with the people. But she's so in bed with special interests -- and has been for... [...]
Nobody even thinks about it; certain foods are being genetically modified that even health nuts aren't considering. Consider coconuts: There are more than 50 million tons of coconuts grown and produced every year, and 80 percent of them come from the Philippines, India, Thailand and Indonesia. Could many of those coconuts be absorbing cancer-causing radiation from the leaking Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan? How often do you check the country of origin when you buy coconut water? Well, that's just the beginning of your search for toxins now, because it's getting scary fast.
Biotechnology firms have already begun to work their evil in laboratories to create agronomic traits for coconuts so that they are resistant to insect pests, particularly the larvae of moths and butterflies. Right now, in Vietnam, genetically modified coconuts are being rolled out to change the characteristics of the composition of the fatty acids (the oil). Not only are field trials underway, but somehow, GM coconuts have found their way into American foods, including dessert items.
Research projects are claiming that the genetically mutated coconuts are limited to the laboratory and greenhouses, but that's a big lie. One dessert called flan, which is sold in America, lists the genetically modified coconut right on the label, and says the product is made in Bedford, Illinois. So how's that a field trial? That's a pretty big field – it must stretch from Vietnam to Illinois, right across the ocean! The product is Raymundo's Homestyle Classics Caramel Flan. The ingredients list on the front of the product lists milk, water, sugar, modified food starch, eggs, corn syrup, and "coconut produced with genetic engineering."
Desserts in America already contain genetically modified coconuts
So, certain coconuts now contain toxins that kill moths and butterflies, and surely the science journals will tout it, celebrating "science!" and how profits and production are now increased for the starving masses, who otherwise wouldn't be able to find or afford anymore coconuts. Sure. And when the great flood, or drought, or tsunami hits the world, everyone will be saved by GM foods, supposedly, and everyone will also be dying of cancer and dementia, like those "pesky" bugs that eat "our" coconuts.
You see, biotechnology corporations are doing everything they can to ruin the best, healthiest foods on the planet. Coconuts provide an excellent source of good fat, and the oil is known to prevent Alzheimer's disease. Along with organic olive oil and avocado oil, coconut oil is one of the last pristine, clean oils fueling longevity. Coconut fat is found in chocolates and chocolate coatings. The water contains many vitamins, and makes a great substitute for drinking water where countries like the USA pollute the tap water with fluoride.
Coconut is also a constituent of cosmetics, such as in soaps, shampoos, creams and body oils. How soon will GM coconuts become the norm, like GM cor [...]
GMO labeling law is ‘fake’, would not ‘truly’ expose engineered food – experts to RT
A new controversial GMO labeling law signed by President Barack Obama would strip US consumers of their right to learn about genetically engineered products as nothing would be labeled, experts told RT.
Passed by Congress, the law officially titled S. 764, has been largely labeled as the “Dark Act,” short for “Denying Americans the Right to Know.” It received a go-ahead from the Obama administration on July 29.
READ MORE: Judge upholds Vermont GMO labeling law while case continues
When implemented, it will require all food packages containing genetically modified organisms to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic code readable by smartphone.
The controversial law nullified a Vermont law that kicked in July 1, forcing food manufacturers to label products containing genetically engineered ingredients.
“Vermont gave us an opportunity to learn about genetic engineering. They required ‘produced with genetic engineering’ to be placed on all food that is genetically engineered. Congress is taking that away and they are replacing it with basically nothing,” political director for the Organic Consumers Association, Alexis Baden-Mayer, told RT.
She says that up to 99.8 percent of all the GMOs grown in the world today are pesticide plants that “are engineered to expose us to more insecticides and herbicides by making the plants tolerant to herbicides that would normally kill them if they were not engineered, or turning the plants themselves into insecticides that have to be regulated by the environmental protection agency.”
Supporters of the mandatory GMO labeling have said instead that the new law would help US consumers “make educated choices” when picking their food. However, opponents of the “Dark Act” say it falls far from the truth.
“[This law] is fake. It means nothing. It is not going to truly label GMOs. There is going to be exemptions from that standard,” independent food and agriculture consultant Elizabeth Kucinich told RT. “This is something that is being really a fabricated piece of legislation to try and quell the food movements that push to really have the right to know what we are eating.”
Baden-Mayer agrees that not all GMO products will be marked, because of a narrow definition of genetically engineered food.
“This definition that they have in the law for ‘bioengineered’ is drawn so narrowly that virtually nothing that is currently being labeled under Vermont’s law will be labeled,” she said.
Critics have also accused the law of trying to intentionally hide the information, by making it hard to access it. About a third of Americans – mostly elderly people and minorities – still don’t use smartphones needed to scan QR codes with information, according to Statista.
“The reason why we are seeing such a burgeoning growth in the organic sector is because people realize that [GMO] labeling [...]
By Dr. Mercola
Organic foods are the antithesis of genetically engineered (GE) foods and, as organic food popularity grows, they're also one of the biotech industry's greatest opponents.
Organic foods are, by their very nature, free of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), and this is one of the traits that makes them superior to their conventionally grown (and often GE) counterparts.
Discrediting the organic industry would be one way for the biotech industry to cast their GE crops in a more favorable light, so when a report came out in 2014 bashing organics, industry funding was likely to be found. For years, however, the report got away with claiming to be independent.
Published by Academics Review, a non-profit "led by independent academic experts in agriculture and food sciences," the report slammed the organic food industry for causing "false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions about competing conventional foods."
It implied that the organic industry was trying to deceptively entice people to pay more for organic produce that is no better than conventional produce.
Even a quick review of the research shows that this is not the case — organic food crops have fewer, if any, pesticide residues and also contain up to 69 percent more antioxidants than conventionally grown varieties, for starters.
What is even more important about this particular report, however, is that it was not even close to the "independent" review it claimed to be. Rather, it was a carefully orchestrated, conflict-of-interest-ridden attack meant to discredit the organic industry in order to directly benefit its opponents.
Monsanto Helped Fundraise For and Collaborated on Strategy With Academics Review
U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit organization pursuing truth and transparency in America's food system, obtained inside emails between Academics Review founders and former Monsanto executives, via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The emails revealed that Academics Review collaborated with Monsanto and others in the industry to discredit those speaking out against GMOs and Monsanto while keeping their identity hidden. According to The Huffington Post:
"What was not mentioned in the [2014 Academics Review organics] report, the news release or on the website:
Executives for Monsanto Co., the world's leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding."
Monsanto Channels Pro-GMO Money Through Academic Institutions
One of Academics Review's co-founders is Bruce Chassy, Ph.D. professor emeritus at the University of Illinois.
Chassy exchanged emails with Monsanto's former head of communications turned biotech PR exec, Jay Byrne, and other Monsanto executives expressing interest in attacking the organic industry and finding corporate support for [...]
(NaturalNews) While UK citizens were revolting en masse against bureaucratic rule in Europe, another cabal of prostituted lawmakers were busy plotting against American food consumers. According to this announcement from the United States Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, committee leaders have reached a "bipartisan agriculture biotechnology compromise solution."
What exactly is this so-called "compromise?"
The complete banning of all GMO labeling state laws across America.
And that's just for starters. After that, this new "compromise" decrees that no foods shall be GMO labeled for two years while the USDA ponders the best way to deceive consumers and hide Monsanto's GMOs for another few years. The suggested law also gives the USDA the right to decree that any foods with less than 50% bioengineered content could be considered non-GMO, by the way.
As a bonus surrender to Monsanto, the law would also not require animal products derived from GMO-fed animals to be considered bioengineered at all. So cattle feedlots can pump cows full of GMOs and glyphosate for years, then sell the resulting beef as "all natural."
Finally, after two years, the USDA would then roll out a nationwide rule that would only require food companies to place a scannable QR code on their labels. Consumers would then have to carry mobile phones with them to scan all the codes in order to determine what's really GMO. As stated in the proposed law:
...the form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link...
In other words, "GMO labeling" doesn't actually have to consist of words or any meaningful symbol. So it's all a farce. This is how the food industry can claim they've agreed to label GMOs without actually labeling GMOs. It's all more subterfuge and collusion between Monsanto and lawmakers... is anyone surprised?
See this QR code image? It is unreadable by humans, and that's one purpose. The U.S. Senate is literally trying to roll out a nationwide GMO "labeling" law that would result in labels which cannot be read by human beings. How's that for being a functioning legislative prostitute for Monsanto?
U.S. Senate going all out to keep you in the dark about GMO foods
In other words, the so-called "compromise" proclaimed by the Senate committee is actually a law that bans clear GMO labeling nationwide and only requires foods to be labeled with digital codes that can only be read by machine (which don't even eat food).
You can't make this stuff up. Somehow, all the other mandatory food labeling requires words or numbers, but when it comes to GMOs, the Senate's attempts to hide and bury this information are so insidious that they've gone with machine language code. Can you imagine if they stripped away ingredients lists and nutrition facts and replaced those labeling sections with machine language code, too? It's basically one giant "F-U" to food consumers from the United States Senate.
Russia’s State Duma adopted Friday the third and final reading of a government bill that introduces a total ban on the cultivation and breeding in Russia of genetically modified (GM) plants and animals, except for scientific research purposes.
The Sate Duma has also given the Russian Government the right to prevent the import of products containing GMOs in to Russia, if it is revealed that a specific GMO has a negative impact on human health and/or the environment
Russia’s Agriculture Minister, Alexander Tkachev, stated Friday; ”The Ministry of Agriculture is strongly against GMOs, Russian products will remain clean.”
The initial first reading of the government bill was held in 2015 and this was followed by the second reading in the Sate Duma earlier this week. The additions in the final bill included the introduction of fines that will be placed on people or companies that violate the ban: a fine of 10,000-50,000 ($150-$750) rubles for individuals and 100,000-500,000 rubles for legal entities ($1,500-$7,500).7
The Russian Government has stood strong in the face of increasing pressure from U.S. biotech companies and they have also managed to see through the Russian pro-GMO forces’ misleading claims and pseudoscience.
In December 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Parliament that Russia should become the world’s largest supplier of organic foods.
Also in 2015, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich stated that it is not necessary to use genetic modification to feed the world, at the 12th International ‘Science and Technology in Society (STS) forum’ in Kyoto, Japan.
This strength shown by the Russian government was also shown early in 2016 when they dealt a huge blow to U.S. farmers, by banning all imports of U.S. soybeans and corn due to microbial and GMO contamination. [...]
In a previous report, I indicated “Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant”, but not what they contained. The present report indicates what they contained.
One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.
This is the day’s keynote speech, which she gave on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying organization in DC, at their annual convention, which in 2014 was held in San Diego. The announcement for attendees said: “Wednesday’s Keynote session is sponsored by Genentech, and is open to Convention registrants with Convention Access and Convention Access & Partnering badges only. Seating is limited.” Somehow, a reporter from a local newspaper, the Times of San Diego, managed to get in. Also, somehow, an attendee happened to phone-video the 50-minute interview that the BIO’s CEO did of Clinton, which took place during the hour-and-a-half period, 12-1:30, which was allotted to Clinton.
The Times of San Diego headlined that day, “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help”, and gave an excellent summary of her statements, including of the interview. Here are highlights:
It was red meat for the biotech base. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a 65-minute appearance at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, voiced support for genetically modified organisms and possible federal subsidies. …
“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk,” she said.
Without such subsidies, she said, “this is going to be an increasing challenge.” …
She said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the “Frankensteinish” depictions could be fought with more positive spin.
“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” she said [at 29:00 in the video next posted here], citing drought-resistant seeds she backed as secretary of state. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” [that too at 29:00] …
Minutes earlier, Gov. Jerry Brown made a rousing 3-minute pitch for companies to see California as biotech-friendly.
“You’ve come to the right place.” …
Brown had some competition for biotech boosterism in the form of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the longtime Clinton ally who pitched his own state as best for biotech. …
[Clinton was] Given a standing ovation at the start and end of her appearance.
In other words: As President, she would aim to sign into law a program to provide subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to Monsanto and other biotech firms, to assist their PR and lobbying organi [...]
(NaturalNews) As technology advances big agriculture is discovering new and inventive ways to poison the remaining organic food on the planet, as evidenced by what is currently taking place Down Under.As reported by WAToday, some South West farmers are drawing attention to what... [...]
(NaturalNews) Not only does the FDA refuse to test food toxins for safety, but they never test them in combination to find out how they may be damaging Americans' ability to think. Medical doctors go to college for at least eight years to study how different prescription medications... [...]
Some ‘Questions And Answers’
The decision on whether to renew EU approval for the herbicide glyphosate is to go to an appeals panel on 23 June after a last ditch attempt to get a temporary re-authorisation failed on 6 June (for some background information, see this). It is unclear if the meeting will produce the majority vote needed to pass the authorisation. The current licence for glyphosate in the EU expires on 30 June.
In an ideal world, glyphosate would be taken off the commercial market due to its obvious adverse effects on human health and the environment. In such a world, the EU would at the same time be facilitating policies that would ensure a major shift towards more sustainable agricultural practices.
In the world that we exist in, however, commercial and geopolitical interests trump any notion of what is in the public interest, what is good for the environment and strategies that could result in localised food production systems to ensure food security, thriving communities, nutritious food, replenished soils and climate-friendly practices.
These interests have succeeded in rolling out a system of economic plunder and bad food and poor health across the planet. If the ordinary person were to engage in biopracy, ecocide, the devastation of livelihoods and to knowingly poison the environment and food, as these corporations have, they would face years of incarceration.
Instead, we find these corporations securing privileged access to or control over institutions and co-opting politicians, policy makers, scientists and regulators, who sit on powerful bodies masquerading as ‘public servants’ or mouth platitudes about serving humanity, while effectively serving the interests of their real constituents: the global agritech/agribusiness cartel.
Conflicts of interest: the EFSA and the Royal Society
In February 2016, campaigner Rosemary Mason wrote to Dr Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), asking him some serious questions about the independence of EFSA committees. The letter comprised the fully-referenced document ‘Glyphosate causes cancer and birth defects. Humans are being poisoned by thousands of untested and unmeasured chemicals’.
Bernard Url failed to reply.
On 6 June, Mason wrote to the president of the influential UK’s Royal Society, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, about conflicts of interest within the Society.
Venki Ramakrishnan has as yet not replied.
In late May, the Royal Society released the report ‘GM Plants: Questions and Answers’. The report reads less like an objective appraisal and more like a pro-GMO whitewash on GM crops.
The report conveniently fails to address the ongoing debate around glyphosate and, where it is briefly mentioned, it is in glowing terms. Given the prevalence of herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and its devastating health and ecological impacts, this is a serious omission. This should come as little surpr [...]