Trump orders simpler path for genetically engineered food

Candice Choi
The Seattle Times

President Trump wants to make it easier for genetically engineered plants and animals to enter the food supply, and he signed an executive order Tuesday directing federal agencies to simplify the "regulatory maze" for producers.

The move comes as companies are turning to newer genetic engineering techniques that make it easier to tinker with the traits of plants and animals.

Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the impact of the executive order will depend on the details of how it's carried out by federal agencies. Simply deregulating could make people lose confidence in genetically engineered foods, he said.

"There needs to be an assurance of safety for those products," said Jaffe, who was among those briefed by government officials on a call before the order was announced.

The order also noted the government's policies should urge trading partners to adopt similar regulatory approaches. Even if the U.S. loosens regulations on genetically engineered foods, Jaffe noted companies could be hampered by regulations overseas.

How genetically engineered plants and animals are currently regulated in the U.S. varies depending on the exact methods used to produce them, and federal agencies have already been working to clarify policies as new technologies have emerged. But already, some aspects of the administration's approach have worried consumer advocacy groups.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed changing its regulations in a way that would mean much of the genetically modified corn and soy grown in the U.S. today would not necessarily have been subject to special oversight.

Crops produced with newer gene-editing technologies also wouldn't automatically be subject to special oversight under the proposed rule, unless they posed a risk as plant pests. Companies have said that gene-editing allows them to more precisely alter plants and animals, and that what they're doing could theoretically be achieved through conventional breeding. 

Read more

Do We Face a Global Food Disaster?

F. William Engdahl
NEO

No, this is not at all an endorsement of the apocalyptic scenarios of AOC or that famous young Swedish climate expert, Greta. It is, however, a look at unusual weather disasters in several key growing regions from the USA to Australia, the Philippines and beyond that could dramatically affect food availability and prices in the coming year. That in turn could have major political implications depending on how the rest of the growing season develops.

USA Midwest Waterlogged

According to the latest May 20 report of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the US Department of Agriculture, corn and soybean crops are well behind the planting growth levels normal this time of the planting season. They report that only 49% of all planned corn acreage in the US has been planted compared with 78% at this time a year ago. Of that only 19% has yet emerged from the ground compared to 47% in May 2018. In terms of soybeans, barely 19% of crops have yet been planted compared with 53% a year before. Rice acreage planted is down to 73% compared to 92% a year ago in the six US rice-growing states. Of course, should weather dramatically improve the final harvest numbers could improve. It is simply too early to predict.

The USA is by a wide margin the world largest soybean producer with 34 percent of the world’s soybean production and 42% of world exports prior to the China trade battles. The US is also the world largest corn or maize producer, almost double China, the number two. A serious harvest failure in these two crops could significantly affect world food prices, leaving aside the unfortunate fact that almost all US soybeans and corn are GMO crops. They are mainly used in animal feed. 

A major factor in the disruption of the US Midwest growing season is the fact that the past 12 months have seen the greatest precipitation levels since the US Government began keeping statistics in 1895, according to the US NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Record snowfall followed by abnormally heavy rains are the reason.

Read more

Lab grown meat backed by Bill Gates to hit shelves in first US state this summer

Nick Meyer
Alt Health Works

Contrary to Biotech talking points, true genetically engineered food has only been on store shelves since the 1990s.

The first commercially available GMO crop was the "FlavrSavr" tomato, which was scrapped due to consumer and corporate rejection.

Since then, many other GMO crops, foods and similar experiments have made their way to store shelves, unlabeled and not tested for long-term safety.

These crops and foods were rushed to market even in spite of warnings from the FDA's own scientists, as detailed in the popular book 'Altered Genes, Twisted Truth' by public interest attorney Steven M. Druker.

The latest lab grown food development is a far different type of experiment, however, with sights on rocking the foundation of one of the most profitable industries in the United States: the meat industry.

And now, one Bill Gates-backed project is ready for its close-up, and will be sold on store shelves for the first time this summer. 

Read more

Monsanto/Bayer Moving to Genome Edit Fruits and More

F. William Engdahl 
 
Not surprising, Monsanto, today hidden behind the Bayer logo, as the world leader in patented GMO seeds and the probable carcinogenic Roundup herbicide with glyphosate, is attempting to quietly patent genetically modified or GMO varieties of fruits using controversial gene-editing. The “beauty” of this for Monsanto/Bayer is that in the USA, according to a recent ruling by the US Department of Agriculture, gene-edited agriculture needs no special independent testing. The developments are not good for human health or safety, nor will it do anything to give the world better nutrition.

The agrichemical and GMO giant Monsanto, which today tries to keep a lower profile inside the German agrichemical and GMO giant Bayer, is moving into the highly controversial domain of gene-editing of new crop varieties. In 2018 as the company was being deluged with lawsuits over its use of the probable carcinogen, Roundup, Monsanto invested $125 million in a gene-editing startup called Pairwise. The link is anything but casual.

Former Monsanto Vice President for Global Biotechnology, Tom Adams, has taken the post of CEO of Pairwise. In short, this is a Monsanto gene-editing project. In a press release, Pairwise says it is using the controversial CRISPR gene-editing technology to create genetically edited produce. Among their goals apparently is a super-sweet variety of strawberry or apples, just what our sugar-saturated population doesn’t need.

CRISPR gene-editing, a stealth attempt by the global agribusiness industry to promote artificial mutations of crops and, as the world was shocked recently to hear, even humans, as in China, is being advanced, much like GMO crops falsely were, as solution to world hunger. Pairwise founder, Keith Joung, told media that their CRISPR gene-edited fruits, “will speed innovation that is badly needed to feed a growing population amid challenging conditions created by a changing climate.” How sweeter genetically-edited strawberries will solve world hunger he leaves to the imagination. Pairwise also says that gene-edited fruits would somehow also cut down on food waste. One has to be also skeptical there as well, even if it makes nice promotion copy. In addition to super-sweet strawberries, Monsanto plans to use its work with Pairwise to develop new varieties of gene-edited corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and canola crops. And because the USDA unfortunately has given the green light, the new genetically modified foods will undergo no independent testing for health and safety.

Read more

New Meta-Analysis Reveals Extensive Phenotypic Differences Between GMO and Non-GMO Cultivated Plants

Green Med Info

Claims of "substantial equivalence" of GM plants again shown to be false

The myth of “substantial equivalence” between GM crops and their closest non-GM relatives (called “isolines”) has taken yet another scientific hit, this time from a new peer-reviewed paper discussed in an article on the website Hygeia Analytics.

The researchers from Mexico City published their meta-analysis of genetic data on rice, canola, maize, sunflower, and pumpkin. They looked at wild, GMO, and non-GMO cultivated varieties of these five crops, analyzing phenotypic change.

The phenotype of a crop is defined by a set of characteristics expressed by the crop’s genetic code (DNA). In theory, genetically engineered plants will show phenotypic changes only linked to the traits that scientists added to the GMO in the hope that they will be expressed. For example, a corn plant engineered to express the Bt toxin should not be different from normal corn in other ways.

However, the Hygeia article says, "Genetics are complicated and unintended consequences often occur." Of the five crops analyzed in the new study, maize, pumpkin and rice showed the most variation between GMO and non-GMO cultivars. These three crops demonstrated wide variation for traits related to days to flowering, number of seeds/fruit, plant height, and pollen viability. In fact, the researchers report that for non-GMO and GMO cultivars of maize, pumpkin and rice, “almost all analyzed traits differ statistically".

Read more

Gene-edited super-crops to be grown in UK for the first time

The Telegraph

Gene-edited super-crops are to be sown in Britain in a European-first after scientists exploited a legal loophole.

The Government has quietly approved the farming of gene-edited (GE) Camelina oilseed crops as part of a trial to super-charge the plants to produce Omega 3 fish oils, one of the most popular food supplements.

The pilot was approved because, unlike genetically modified (GM) plants, the Camelina oilseed crops contain no foreign DNA. Instead, they had their genetic code altered in a way that could have happened naturally.

Scientists say gene-editing can cut the time it takes to engineer new plants from decades to months. They argue embracing the new technology is vital if Britain is to benefit from GE crops and help maintain a sustainable source of fish oils in face of depleted ocean stocks.

The trial starts as the European Court of Justice prepares to decide whether GE plants can be legally treated as if they were conventional crops across the EU.

Critics, however, accused Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) of pre-empting a decision by the court which could end up requiring GM-style regulation of GE crops.

Read more

Millennials 'have no qualms about GM crops' unlike older generation

The Telegraph UK 

 

The advent of genetically modified crops caused a scandal in the 1990s. 

But the younger generation is largely relaxed about eating GM foods, new research has shown, as farmers called for a post-Brexit technology revolution. 

 

Two thirds of under-30s believe technology is a good thing for farming and support futuristic farming techniques, according to a survey. 

 

Only 20 per cent of millennials expressed concerns about the benefits of gene editing or genetically modifying crops, despite decades of opposition and media warnings. 

 

The poll of more than 1,600 18 to 30-year-olds, carried out for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), also found that around two thirds of young people support the use of drones in livestock farming to count sheep and in arable farming to assess, monitor and spray crops. 

 

A similar number also supports the use of innovations such as unmanned aerial vehicles to improve crop security and yields while only one in five object to the use of self-driving tractors on farms. 

Read More

Salk Vaccine Institute creates human-pig GMO

Dr. Mercola
Mercola

In Greek mythology, a chimera is a fire-breathing monster created from different species, most often portrayed as a creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail.

Chimeras have long been regarded as mythical creatures, to the extent that the word "chimera" also means "an illusion or fabrication of the mind" or "an unrealizable dream."¹ Among humans, chimeras, or people who have two genetically distinct types of cells, do exist, however.

Most often this occurs among non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus and end up having more than one blood type (they're known as blood chimeras). The idea of a human-animal chimera has remained confined largely to mythology, however — until now. 

First Human-Pig Hybrid Created
 
Researchers from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, have made history by creating a human-pig hybrid, a task achieved by injecting days-old pig embryos with human pluripotent stem cells.² Such cells, like embryonic stem cells, are able to divide indefinitely and become any type of cell in the body.

The human-pig embryos were then transferred into adult pigs and allowed to grow for up to four weeks, before they were "removed and analyzed."³

The study noted that more than 2,000 hybrid embryos were transferred into surrogate sows, but only 186 later-stage chimeric embryos survived the process, each with about 1 in 100,000 human cells. The long-term goal of such research is to figure out if it's possible to grow human organs inside other species, like pigs. Human embryo development, drug development and disease processes could also be studied using chimeras.

Animal chimeras have been developed in the past. For instance, researchers genetically engineered (GE) rat embryos to not produce a pancreas (which controls blood sugar levels), then injected mouse stem cells into them, which resulted in the growth of pancreatic tissue.

They were then able to treat diabetes by transplanting parts of the healthy organs into diseased mice.⁴

The development of human-animal chimeras has, however, remained in the realm of science fiction until now. Aside from the glaring ethical considerations, these types of experiments have been ineligible for public funding in the U.S., which is why the Salk Institute has had to rely on private funding for the study.⁵
 
Read more

While You Were Distracted By The US Election, The Senate Outlawed GMO Labeling Nationwide

True Activist

 

While attention was diverted to the US election for much of this year, the Senate quietly made null and void state laws that require that GMO foods be labeled.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a concern for a number of reasons. When consumed, GMOs have been shown to cause gastrointestinal problems, increase cancer risk, and even silence human genes, not to mention their harmful effects on the environment and endangered species such as bees. Within the US, there is also a dearth of safety testing as most tests that show that GMOs are “safe” are short-term studies, lasting only a matter of months. Longer-term studies, even those conducted for just a few months longer than industry-funded studies, have found that the consumption of GMOs causes serious problems, such as an increase in tumor risk. For those US consumers who are rightly concerned about the presence of GMOs in their food, mandatory GMO labeling is one solution that gives consumers the right to know what is in their food while not affecting the GMO food purchases of those who support biotechnology. A handful of US states have successfully passed GMO labeling laws such as Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. Similar initiatives in other states, like California, only failed due to the massive amounts of money funneled to the opposition by Industrial Agriculture and Food companies as well as the corporations who create GMO seeds and associated agrochemicals, such as Monsanto.

Read more

New Way to Boost Crop Production Doesn’t Rely on GMOs or Pesticides

MIT Tech Review

A new treatment for cotton seeds draws on beneficial microbes that live inside plants—much like the good bacteria in our own guts—to help the crops thrive in dry conditions.

The microbe-enhanced cotton, the first product from startup Indigo Agriculture, is already growing on 50,000 acres spread across five different states in the southern United States. Indigo CEO David Perry says the treatment increases yield as much as irrigation can. The company also today announced a new $100 million investment round that brought its venture funding total to $156 million.

Many experts argue that global agricultural productivity is not growing fast enough to keep up with the increase in global demand for food. Intense competition for land and pressures to reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use have led technologists to search for new ways to increase yield. Adding beneficial microbes to crops could be an effective but less controversial alternative to genetic engineering.

Read more

ORGANIC FARMER GROUP Dumps ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION

OSGATA

 

By a unanimous vote of its Board of Directors, the organic farmer-controlled Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) has withdrawn its membership from the Organic Trade Association (OTA). OSGATA’s decision was prompted by OTA’s duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers when a small number of OTA board members endorsed a dangerous Senate bill that would immediately preempt existing strong state GMO Labeling laws that are widely supported by the Organic community and ninety percent of consumers.

Biotech giant Monsanto is universally recognized within the Organic community as organic’s greatest threat.  Recent revelations have made clear that the OTA has created numerous close partnerships with Monsanto including intensive lobbying efforts by the notorious biotech-linked lobbyist Podesta Group on behalf of the deal brokered by Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts (R-KS).  The Stabenow-Roberts (S.764) is a Senate bill - backed by industrial agriculture and large food conglomerates and whose primary intent are nullifying of historic mandatory GMO Labeling laws passed by huge margins in Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and Alaska legislatures and relieving multinational food companies of the requirement to clearly label products that were produced by genetic engineering.   OTA support for the Monsanto-backed bill proved essential for passage. Last week Stabenow-Roberts passed in the Senate by a narrow four-vote margin of victory on a vote of 63-30.

Read more

Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

Amy Goodrich
Natural News

Over the years, genetically modified crops have been a controversial topic of intense global debate. While proponents claim that GMOs are safe and needed to feed our burgeoning population, health and environmental groups are concerned about the lack of long-term testing on the impact of GMOs on the environment and human health.

Recently, the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), released a highly influential and comprehensive report, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, on the effects of genetically engineered crops.

A panel of experts spent two years producing a 400-page report, which is one of the most extensive reviews of genetically modified crops ever published. They pooled data from more than 1,000 existing studies on genetically modified crops. They interviewed 80 witnesses, and analyzed more than 700 comments submitted by the public.

The study committee concluded that genetically modified crops available to date are safe for human consumption and the environment. However, they note that the prevalence of herbicide-resistant crops has led to an increase in herbicide use and herbicide-resistant weeds.

Furthermore, they found that while GMOs may help farmers economically, they do not see the significant increase in yield promised by proponents that see GMOs as the best way to avoid world hunger.

The report comes at a critical time, as America and Europe are reassessing the place of GMOs in our food system. According to a Pew poll, more than half of Americans (57 percent) believe that GMOs are unsafe and should be labeled, while proponents say they don’t cause any harm and will help farmers meet the growing demand for food.

Read more

Countering Pro-GMO Deceptions and Falsehoods. Genetically Engineered Crops are not Safe

Colin Todhunter 
Global Research

In his recent piece for The Times newspaper in the UK, Viscount Matt Ridley argues that a new report from the American National Academies of Sciences (NAS) leaves no room for doubt that genetically engineered crops are as safe or safer, and are certainly better for the environment, than conventionally bred crops.

Ridley adheres to the belief that GM technology reduces insecticide use and speculates that future GM crops will be even safer, better for the environment and better for human health. He says that it is a disgrace that Greenpeace still campaigns against Golden Rice, a vitamin-enhanced variety that its backers claim could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

According to Ridley, opposition from rich westerners adds to the cost of bringing such crops to the market, which he argues restricts the spread of GM technology.

In discussing the labelling of GM food in the US, Ridley argues this leaves consumers with the impression that there is something wrong. He argues that the recent NAS report makes the point that genetic engineering is a method, not a category of crop, and it makes no sense to single it out for special labelling because regulation should be based on traits, not techniques. Ridley implies, therefore, that GM is no different from food that is boiled or roasted as its actual content remains unaffected.

Ridley finishes by saying the NAS report points out that “emerging genetic technologies have blurred the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding to the point where regulatory systems based on process are technically difficult to defend.”

With a good dose of industry-inspired PR flurry, he concludes that because gene editing in particular will soon allow scientists to improve crops in ways that have none of the even theoretical risks that critics highlight, if Europe does not embrace biotech plants now, its agriculture will wilt.

Unfortunately, for readers of The Times, Ridley’s piece is the usual concoction of misrepresentations, falsehoods and blunders we have come to expect of pro-GMO puff pieces that rely on flawed sources and reports.

His major blunder is to have accepted at face value the NAS report.

Read more

From The Green Revolution To GMOs: Living In The Shadow Of Global Agribusiness

Colin Todhunter 
True Publica

What can we do about the powerful transnational agribusiness companies that have captured or at the very least heavily influence regulatory bodies, research institutes, trade agreements and governments? How can we assess the safety and efficacy of GMOs or their other technologies and products when narratives and decision-making processes have become distorted by these companies?

Through the ‘green revolution’ chemical-intensive model of agriculture these corporations and their powerful backers promoted and instituted, they have been able to determine what seeds are to be used by farmers, what is to be grown and what inputs are to be applied. This, in turn, has adversely effected the nutritional content of food, led to the over-exploitation of water and diminished drought resistance, degraded soil, undermined biodiversity, polluted the environment, destroyed farmers’ livelihoods and so much more: with 60 years’ farming experience behind him, Bhaskar Save outlined many of these impacts in his open letter to Indian officials some years back.

These powerful corporations increasingly hold sway over a globalised system of food and agriculture from seed to plate. And with major mergers within the agribusiness sector in the pipeline, power will be further consolidated and the situation is likely to worsen. While scientific innovation has a role to play in improving agriculture, the narrative about farming has been shaped to benefit the interests of this handful of wealthy, politically influential corporations whereby commercial interest trumps any notion of the public good.

The green revolution has proved to be disastrous in many areas (for example, see this, this and this). If the technology involved had been used more judiciously and genuinely in the public interest – and had not been married to geopolitical interestsresulting in the creation of food deficit regions or instituted for the commercial gain of corporations – would we not now be in a better position? And would organic farming and agroecology have received greater attention and investment and be playing a much greater role (as research shows they should), even a dominant one, in agriculture?

Read more


See also:  World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation”

E Hanzai
Waking Times

Of all the mega-corps running amok, Monsanto has consistently outperformed its rivals, earning the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!” Not content to simply rest upon its throne of destruction, it remains focused on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and its people.

1901: The company is founded by John Francis Queeny, a member of the Knights of Malta, a thirty year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga Mendez Monsanto, for which Monsanto Chemical Works is named. The company’s first product is chemical saccharin, sold to Coca-Cola as an artificial sweetener.

Even then, the government knew saccharin was poisonous and sued to stop its manufacture but lost in court, thus opening the Monsanto Pandora’s Box to begin poisoning the world through the soft drink.

1920s: Monsanto expands into industrial chemicals and drugs, becoming the world’s largest maker of  aspirin, acetylsalicyclic acid, (toxic of course). This is also the time when things began to go horribly wrong for the planet in a hurry with the introduction of  their polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

“PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical, an oil that wouldn’t burn, impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet. Widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders. The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state.”(1)

Even though PCBs were eventually banned after fifty years for causing such devastation, it is still present in just about all animal and human blood and tissue cells across the globe. Documents introduced in court later showed Monsanto was fully aware of the deadly effects, but criminally hid them from the public to keep the PCB gravy-train going full speed!

Read more
 

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Seeds of suicide

Dr. Vandana Shiva
deccanchronicle.com

May 22 has been declared International Biodiversity Day by the UN. It gives us an opportunity to become aware of the rich biodiversity that has been evolved by our farmers. It also provides an opportunity to acknowledge the threats to our biodiversity from IPR monopolies.

Just as our Vedas and Upanishads have no individual authors, our rich biodiversity, including seeds, have been evolved cumulatively. I recently joined tribals who evolved thousands of rice varieties for their festival of "Akti". Akti is a celebration of the relationship of the seed and the soil, and the community.

In addition to learning about seeds from women and peasants, I had the honour to participate and contribute to international and national laws on biodiversity. I worked closely with our government in the run-up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, when the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was adopted. Three key commitments in the CBD are protection of the sovereign rights of countries to their biodiversity, the traditional knowledge of communities and biosafety in the context of genetically-modified foods.

The UN appointed me on the expert panel for the framework for the biosafety protocol, now adopted as the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. I was appointed a member of the expert group to draft the National Biodiversity Act, as well as the Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act. We ensured that farmers rights are recognized in our laws. It says:

"A farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce, including seed of a variety protected under this act, in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this act"

Patents on seeds are unjust. A patent or any intellectual property right is a monopoly granted by society in exchange for benefits. But society has no benefit in toxic, non-renewable seeds. We are losing biodiversity, we are losing nutrition, and quality of our food. Above all, we are losing our fundamental freedom to decide what seeds we will sow.

Seed as a common good has become a commodity of private companies. Unless protected and put back in the hands of our farmers, it is at risk of being lost forever. 

Read more

Why We’re So Unhealthy

Charles Hugh-Smith
PeakProsperity.com

Our system makes & keeps us sick

 

That America is in the throes of a systemic health crisis can no longer be denied. According to the U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, more than two-thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are overweight or obese.  (Overweight is typically defined as a body-mass index (BMI) of 25 or higher. A BMI of 24.9 is not exactly featherweight; I would have to add 30 pounds to reach a BMI of 24.9.).

The health risks of being overweight or obese include:

• type 2 diabetes
• heart disease
• high blood pressure
• nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (excess fat and inflammation in the liver of people who drink little or no alcohol)
• osteoarthritis (a health problem causing pain, swelling, and stiffness in one or more joints)
• some types of cancer: breast, colon, endometrial (related to the uterine lining), and kidney
• stroke

Since the early 1960s, the prevalence of obesity among adults more than doubled, increasing from 13.4 to 35.7 percent in U.S. adults age 20 and older.  (Source)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in 2015 that roughly half of all adult Americans are diabetic or prediabetic (also called metabolic syndrome).

If we add up everyone in America who is either suffering from or at risk of lifestyle-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and lifestyle-related types of cancer, it’s clear this is an unprecedented national health crisis that has no easy or cheap medical fix.

Why have we become so unhealthy? The answers come thick and fast: we are more sedentary as most work is now white-collar; the foods low-income people can afford are unhealthy; children now spend time playing digital games rather than playing outside; serving sizes of sodas and other high-calorie/low nutrition beverages have ballooned; people buy more convenience and fast foods and prepare fewer meals at home, and so on.

Two things are clear: there is no one solution to the epidemic of lifestyle-related diseases. Limiting sodas in schools and demanding better labeling of food are examples of reforms that are well-intended, but have so far had little effect on the expanding waistlines of Americans or their ill-health.

The second is expressed by the Chinese proverb: “Diseases enter through the mouth,” i.e. disease is a result of what we eat and drink. Since what we eat has an enormous impact on our health, if we want to tackle our health crisis in a manner that get results, we must start with what we eat and how our food is grown, processed and prepared.

Once we start examining our diet, we have to examine where our food comes from, how it is grown/raised and how it is processed for consumers.

A second Chinese proverb explains why we must start with diet: “When you’re thirsty, it’s too late to dig a well.”  If we want to avoid lifestyle illnesses, we must start pursuing a new way of growing and preparing food now, not after we’re already ill.

The long lists of contributory factors to our growing ill-health distract us from the real source of our national health crisis: our food/illness/healthcare system is sick, and so it’s no wonder we’re sick, too.  The only possible result of our unhealthy food/illness/healthcare care system is ill-health.

Understanding the Food / Illness / Healthcare System

 

To understand why this is so, we must start with the fact that we live in a highly centralized government/private-sector system that limits our choices to maximize the profits of corporate cartels: Big Agriculture, Big Oil/Ag Chemicals, Big GMO seeds (Monsanto et al.), Big Processed Foods, Big Supermarkets, Big Fast Food, Big Healthcare (what I have called sickcare for many years, because profits flow not from keeping us healthy via prevention but from keeping us alive when we’re suffering from chronic lifestyle illnesses) and last but not least Big Pharma, which is happy to provide medications that costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year to address the symptoms of lifestyle diseases rather than the causes, which trace back to what we eat and how we live.

Read more

Monsanto to face ‘tribunal’ in The Hague for ‘damage to human health and environment’

Blacklisted News /RT

 

A global group of professionals, scientists and environmentalists – the Monsanto Tribunal – are preparing a trial for the GMO seed giant in The Hague. They say the crowdfunded action, determined to charge Monsanto with “ecocide,” is more than a symbolic move.

The Monsanto Tribunal’s goal is to research and evaluate all of the allegations made against Monsanto in connection to all the damages its products have caused to human health and the environment. It is scheduled to be held at The Hague from October 12 to 16 in 2016. The trial will wrap up on next year’s World Food Day.

One of the main goals the broad group of signees [ABOUT US] wants the tribunal to achieve is establishing “ecocide” as a crime. “Recognizing ecocide as a crime is the only way to guarantee the right of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected,” The International Monsanto Tribunal says on its website.

Read more

National Geographic unites with toxic-pushing corporations to the destroy the very planet it once photographed

Julie Wilson
Natural News

What was once considered an excellent resource for educating young minds about science and the environment is now aggressively promoting industry-backed "science," including the claim that water fluoridation is completely safe and anyone who questions it is a disreputable conspiracy theorist.

In operation since 1888, the National Geographic Society is one of the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institutions in the world, educating minds about geography, archaeology and natural science, as well promoting environmental and historical conservation.

While that may have once been the case, the largely influential scientific nonprofit is now dedicated to pushing the agenda of corporations poisoning and destroying the planet.

For those of us who are science-literate, Nat Geo's March 2015 cover is shocking. The issue attempts to confuse readers by comparing wild conspiracy theories, such as the assertion that the U.S. moon landing was faked, with justifiable concerns over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the correlation between vaccines and autism.

Read more 
 

Monsanto suffers major defeat as majority of EU states say 'No to GMO'

F. William Engdahl
New Eastern Outlook

Monsanto and the GMO agribusiness cartel have suffered a major new defeat as two-thirds of the 28 EU member states have opted for a full ban on GMO crops according to the terms of new Brussels rules allowing national decision on the toxic agro-technology. The bans across the EU greatly expand the EU acreage off-limits to GMO from the previous somewhat chaotic EU procedures.

By the October 3 deadline, the EU Commission has announced that 19 of the 28 EU member countries have filed for a full "opt-out" or ban on GMO commercial crops in their countries. Other states can still file no GMO opt-outs after October 3 on certain grounds.

The states saying fully No to GMO now include Germany (except for limited research only, not commercial planting), and France. France continues its previous ban, including for Monsanto MON810 GMO maize, the only GMO crop presently in commercial cultivation in the EU, , mainly in Spain and Portugal. In addition to Germany and France, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia all now have full GMO bans.

As wel there are regional bans within the UK of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a major portion of the best UK agricultural land. The UK Cameron government however remains pro-GMO. In Belgium, the southern part, Wallonia, adjacent to France and Luxemburg, also opted to ban GMO. The decision of Ireland, which had a total ban on GMO in 2009, is at this point unclear.

Read more