Posts Tagged ‘Monsanto’

The Positive Power of Money

May 9, 2014, at 3 p.m., but Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge already began working yesterday just following the original announcement! Details here. “Do you want to be the last person owning Monsanto stock?” Stick it to ’em.

Boycott their foods. Boycott their products. Boycott their seeds. And if you own mutual funds, pull your money from biotech stocks. If the Supreme Court wants to affirm that only money matters in politics and policy, then fine, we can play the money game, too.

Where can you safely spend your money? Try organic farmers’ markets, small heritage seed companies committed to seed purity, and click here for a list of 400 companies who don’t use GMO’s.

Long Comments Discussion Bump-Up RE: Toxic GMO’s

This string of commentary has taken enough time and frustration that I’m bumping it up to its own post.

Posted by Jon Berkowitz on April 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm edit

Genetic modification of a plant affects only polypeptides translated from the genome template. Proteins in GMO and non-GMO foods may have variation in three-dimensional structure, but all that structure is rendered moot when the protein is digested to free amino acids by enzymes in the stomach and in the small intestine. While there might be vanishingly small variation in amino acid representation in the digestion mix, amino acids are still amino acids whether they come from a GMO plant or a non-GMO plant.
When a GMO food is digested, the digestion products, amino acids, are no different than the mix of amino acids generated by digestion of a non-GMO food. The whole GMO obsession is one big hoax.

Posted by laurabruno on April 5, 2014 at 2:24 pm edit

Then how do you explain all the (numerous) studies showing otherwise? The only times these studies are refuted is when Monsanto takes over the publication or someone gets threatened. The hoax is having the rolling door between our government and Monsanto and paid shills spouting company propaganda. If GMOs are so great, then why the thuggery, why the corrupt business practices, why the refusal to label anything, why the bribery and pressure to keep GMOs unaccountable for organic farms’ crop pollution (and it IS pollution) … why the refusal to conduct REAL scientific, long-term studies before determining something is safe? Even if the proteins were similar, your comment accounts nothing for the toxic herbicides and pesticides these crops are routinely drenched with — chemicals that HAVE been proven to cause cancer. You’re either a paid shill yourself, or a sadly misinformed artificial flavor and FD&C Kool Aid drinker. I would encourage you to research glyphosate and Agent Orange. They’re not health tonics. Also interesting that your url is just a straight https://www.facebook.com url.

Posted by Jon Berkowitz on April 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm edit

Rest assured, I am paid or supported by nobody in my comments. I am a protein chemist with a thy-year career studying proteins from native sources. What I recited to you are the facts. Your studies may reveal this or that but what I have put down are the facts and it’s likely that Monsanto isn’t doing long-term studies because they too recognize the truth that the facts reveal. I not here to discuss the relative merits of pesticides and herbicides as you bring up. That isn’t even tangential to the legitimacy of the claims that GMO foods are dangerous. You can kick against the the pricks all day long, but in the end, the basic facts and the logic that accompanies them will prevail. “Don’t harbor beautiful theories by concealing ugly facts.” (Bill Patton) For the record, I am a big fan of organic gardening/farming and have been involved in the natural foods movement since 1975

Posted by laurabruno on April 5, 2014 at 3:18 pm edit

Good to hear you’re not a paid shill. I disagree that pesticides and herbicides are irrelevant to the discussion. GMOs and these toxins go hand in hand and are designed to do so. Blessings, Laura

Posted by Jon Berkowitz on April 5, 2014 at 11:51 pm edit

The discussion concerns the legitimacy of the claim that GMO are hazardous to human health. If, as you say, that pesticides and herbicides go hand-in-hand with GMO crops then you need to come up with a explanation of why the adjustment of one to several genes in the germline of a compromises resistance to pests and competing plants. Pest resistance is also something that can be manipulated for advantage. This can reduce or eliminate need of and herbicides to great economic benefit. I challenge you to demonstrate the verity of your claim that GMO crops and pesticides and herbicides “go hand-in-hand.” That aside, it seems you are unwilling to recognize the argument I have set forth that refutes the legitimacy of the entire GMO-foods crusade. And it’s irresponsible and misleading to propagate untruths.

My Facebook page is openly available to anyone who wants to view it. I don’t know what problem you had with my Facebook url because your sentence was cut off before the end. I am the Jon Berkowitz who resides in Niskayuna, NY

Posted by laurabruno on April 6, 2014 at 1:57 am edit

Have you really not heard of Bt corn that is designed to be its own pesticide and that cows that eat this corn are having some of the same effects (exploding stomach) as the insects? Have you not heard of Roundup ready corn and soy? As in, these are designed to withstand increasingly heavy sprayings of glyphosate? Do you think they design things to be sprayed by glophosate and then just miraculously don’t spray it? Are you not aware of Agent Orange being used because of RoundUp resistant superweeds?

Where do you think all these chemicals go if not into the food, water and land? My ex-husband was a Vietnam Vet who was exposed to Agent Orange. It’s not a health tonic. What about studies now indicating the role of GM corn in increased food sensitivities and gluten intolerance due to damage of human digestive tracts? What about the fact that most of these pesticides and herbicides are known carcinogens and neurotoxins?

I am not spreading disinformation. Dow chemical and Monsanto are chemical corporations in the business of industrial chemicals. That is a fact. Their GM Frankenfoods are designed to withstand absurdly high applications of their chemicals. To say the connection is not relevant to the dangers of GMO’s is like the bought and paid for Federal gov’t saying “Just because we have the NDAA and the right to drone American citizens, c’mon it’s no big deal, because at our discretion we might decide not to. Why do you assume because we designed the laws this way and insist through court cases that we maintain these rights to do away with due process and just kill people at our discretion that we intend to use the laws to imprison without trial or kill without consequence? That’s paranoid.” Roundup ready soy growers aren’t going to use Roundup. Right.

The reason we have superweeds is because of the massive use of Roundup on GM monocrops. And who’s to say that a tiny shift in proteins isn’t a big deal in terms of the body and the endocrine system? Look at what tiny shifts in an ecosystem do – huge ripple effects. Playing with genetics is, at best, something that ought to require good ethics and a sense of responsibility. Monsanto has shown neither. Consistently.

If you are not familiar with the ravages of indigenous communities and the poisoning of their food and water, then I encourage you to research what’s happening in South and Central America. It is ALL related. Monsanto favors BigAg practices and BigAg is what’s depleting our topsoil of nutrients and poisoning our land and water. That all factors in. I’m sorry if you can’t see that.

Posted by laurabruno on April 6, 2014 at 2:33 am edit

http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-soy-agent-orange-2-4-d-herbicide/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm
http://voxxi.com/2013/04/10/monsanto-gmo-poisoning-argentina/

http://micmn.com/3852/gmo-corn-may-turn-your-tummy-into-a-poison-production-factory/

Posted by Jon Berkowitz on April 6, 2014 at 2:22 pm edit

My initial post concerning the basis for claiming that GMO foods and non-GMO are indistinguishable did not have the purpose of launching into the controversy regarding pesticides and their toxicity into which you have manipulated this discussion. You have not addressed my initial assertion that, after digestion, the product from GMO foods is indistinguishable from that of non-GMO food. This is the central thesis of the controversy surrounding GMO foods. Even unique post-translational modification of products emerging from genetically modified plants are rendered into amino acids and simple sugars in the gut before absorption into the bloodstream. Are you aware of any of the beneficial results from genetically engineered crops? For example, this article http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how1_sci.php discusses the engineering of the rice genome so that the crop produces beta carotene for the purpose of ameliorating vitamin A deficiency among natives in primitive communities.

Furthermore, you have not cited the literature in asserting claims regarding the evil that pesticides are as you suppose. You seem to disregard the fact that the body has a certain capacity to detoxify noxious compounds and that resides in the liver. Not that we should tempt this capacity by seeking out opportunities to ingest toxins. But it is a significant factor in clearing the body of those things it cannot use. Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand that we all have potentially carcinogenic processes taking place in our bodies and the causes of metabolic equilibrium shift toward products of these processes and the appearance of malignancy is not determined by one factor but by many. Thus, to say “Agent Orange causes cancer,” is not scientifically sound because there’s no quantitative consideration in the claim, nor is there any mention of the enormous variation in tolerance that exists among people for the toxins found in pesticides. Another element to consider is that the bulk of the pesticides fractionate with the fibrous parts of plant material and are eliminated before they get the chance to be absorbed. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691599001106).

But again, I would like to know how you can operate in this cause while not admitting the specious pretexts upon which it is based. Studies of anything biological usually yield a spectrum of results and frequently researchers will use calculations to arrive at results which support final conclusions that are consistent with the researcher’s objectives. You can debate, interpret and manipulate results. But you cannot do this with facts. And the facts concerning germline manipulation of plants and the resulting protein products produced by this do not support the notion that GMO-foods are different in their elemental constituents after digestion than non-GMO foods and therefore there is no logical or scientific basis for the assertion that there is a difference between them. Here is a study from a reputable, mainstream scientific journal which supports my stand: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Posted by laurabruno on April 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm edit

I have not manipulated the discussion, as I do not feel you can argue GMOs in a vacuum that fails to address pesticides and herbicides. If you feel so strongly about GMOs being safe then go ahead and campaign for them. Somewhere else.

There have been enough studies and experiences of birth defects, neurological issues, cancers and respiratory issues and even death after spraying of such. A friend of my partner’s family had their young, healthy child drop dead the afternoon of mistakenly riding his bike downwind of a field as they sprayed pesticides on it. My father got the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma specifically associated with glyphosate after a summer of spraying Roundup on dandelions. The level of toxins found in bloodstreams and crossing the placental barrier would seem to indicate that we have far exceeded many people’s capacities to detoxify them.

I have sent links to articles. I will read the one you sent, but I personally don’t care if GMOs digest the same. I don’t believe it does in all cases, as per the humans now having Bt in their own guts. I also do not see how you can reasonably separate pesticides and herbicides from health concerns with GMOs. As for feeding the world? Permaculture and restoring the land so it is not so depleted of life giving nutrients. Permaculture also creates systems that mimic nature and help to enlarge and protect harvests.

I don’t have time to continue this discussion with you. Clearly, we do not agree. In the long haul, mankind has not shown that altering Nature is a universally wise decision. People have an immediate revulsion against some things for a reason. Third World countries are among the groups banning GMOs. They would rather starve than eat that crap. Enjoy your organic gardening whilst trumpeting the safety of GMOs!

Posted by laurabruno on April 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm edit

Twelve “long-term” studies of 90 days or up to two years! LOL, 90 days to two years is not long-term, particularly when some studies have indicated multi-generational effects from both GMOs and the toxins associated with them. It is this sort of short sighted thinking that got us into the corporatocracy and medical mafia destroying our world. I do not worship the god of science. I’m sorry if that’s your chosen profession and religion, but, while science does sometimes have value, science and the corporations worshiping it are also largely responsible for most of the problems they purport to solve. Indigenous wisdom worked well for millennia before science insisted on improving Nature. Even Pasteur recanted some of his work on his deathbed.

As I said, enjoy your organic gardening whilst promoting the “longterm” safety of GMOs. In my world, safety includes living environment, as well as quality of life — all life, not just humancentric. We have not even gotten into discussions about the bees and pesticides. Try solving world hunger without bees! The way things are going, we might have to. I’m sure science will bless us with a solution to that, which causes another whole series of problems, for which they will also have the (patented) solution.

Jon Rappoport ~ Monsanto Aliens

This article begins with some incredibly telling quotes from leaders in Monsanto, a biotech industry consultant, and the FDA. The quotes alone make a powerful and obvious statement of corruption and intent.

Monsanto aliens

by Jon Rappoport

April 1, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

“I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle” – Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, “The Spirit of Enterprise”, 1934.

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Playing God in the Garden” New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety” – FDA, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties” (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

“What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain” – Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto’s agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.

“People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not” – Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britain, as quoted in The Nation magazine from article “The Politics of Food” [49] by Maria Margaronis December 27, 1999 issue.

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender” – Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001.

(Quotes compiled by the Organic Consumers Association.)

They don’t need to come from another galaxy. They’re aliens.

Their mindset is a combination of “let’s see what happens when we experiment on everybody without knowing what we’re doing” and “let’s wall ourselves off from life and compartmentalize our souls and act like soldiers taking over the Earth.”

This IS alien. Mega-corporate is alien to life. It thrives on machine existence. It gains its strength from acting like a machine. A machine that spouts lies at every opportunity to advance its agenda.

Mega-corporate spokesmen are programmed to emulate an image of science, emulate a thought-form that symbolizes science.

They’re cartoons of science. Mechanical cartoons.

Efficiency. Rationality. Certainty.

It’s no accident that a great deal of science fiction presents aliens as machine-like, soulless, without conscience. This is a reflection of what society has become.

They came from outer space. They had a plan. They had a detailed agenda for a takeover. They invaded. They deployed their troops. They conquered territory after territory. They expanded their operation. They executed their strategy. They used local traitors.

They said what they had to say, to placate the masses. They promised peace. They promised abundance. They tried to sound human. They pretended they were alive.

Promises and pretenses are what giant corporations, governments, religions, and priest-classes are all about. But above all is the pretense of being alive.

Behind the pretense is: selling organization.

It doesn’t really matter what kind of organization it is. There are untold billions of people who work for mega-organizations, and there are billions more who accept organization as the sign of sanity.

The sign of sanity in the world.

If you work for, or support mega-organization, you’re sane. If you don’t, you’re insane.

Perfect alien propaganda.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Christina Sarich ~ New Lawsuit Filed Against USDA Over Missing Docs Showing GMO Dangers

Surprise, surprise, Monsanto has undue influence. This does, however, raise some interesting questions about “organic” straw bale gardening, which I was just researching last night. I opted not to do it because I aim for less, not more water usage; however, I did wonder how we would know what kind of straw we’re getting if we buy it at a bigger store rather than from a farmer. “Data now shows that 90% of all alfalfa grown in the US is covered in Round Up Ready chemicals.” Do I want that in my lasagna garden beds and compost? Maybe a moot point since I used two straw bales for layering our front yard, but I will definitely check more carefully for future mulch layers. … Thanks, G!

Christina Sarich ~ New Lawsuit Filed Against USDA Over Missing Docs Showing GMO Dangers

NaturalSociety March 14 2014

Like many Americans, you may be beating your head against the wall trying to figure out how governmental agencies could so blatantly ignore the facts concerning GMO dangers. A new lawsuit filed March 12, 2014 by Center for Food Safety (CFS) demands that federal documents be released which might incriminate the United States Department of Agriculture over findings that GMO were harmful, while shielding the public from this knowledge. The complaint is filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and can be viewed in full, here.

The lawsuit attests that political pressure was asserted on the FDA to approve genetically engineered alfalfa. It seeks 1179 documents from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) which explain why the agency reversed its original decision to deny GMOs, specifically RoundUp Ready Alfalfa, being promoted by Monsanto. The Director of CFS, Andrew Kimbrell, states:

“USDA determined Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa posed significant environmental and economics harms and initially proposed placing restrictions on it. Yet the agency went ahead and granted full unrestricted approval one month later. Did the White House intervene? Did Monsanto pressure the agency? The fact is we don’t know, and unless the court orders USDA to hand over these documents we may never know,”

In 2005, the USDA agency, APHIS, gave Monsanto permission to sell their poison alfalfa under the name RoundUp Ready. The very next year, CFS, along with a coalition of farmers, challenged the approval. And even though Monsanto tried to intervene, courts sided with the Center for Food Safety. APHIS was ordered to complete a thorough analysis of the GMO crop’s impacts on farmers and the environment before making a decision.

Read: Letter Reveals Monsanto Planted GMOs Before USDA Approval

Sadly, Monsanto got its way after appealing the decision at the Supreme Court level, even though the APHIS report showed significant damage to agronomics and the environment at large. The report recommended restrictions of this Monsanto crop.

In January of 2011, APHIS reversed its decision in favor of Monsanto, seemingly ignoring all the data they had uncovered showing that GMO alfalfa was not good for the environment, farmers, or consumers. They even stated that they ‘had no choice’ but to grant unrestricted approval. Alternative media then questioned the abrupt reversal, raising questions of undue influence.

“APHIS’s sudden change of heart on the approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa has led to the contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa to the detriment of U.S. farmers, and threatens the health of our environment and the survival of sensitive species,” said Sylvia Wu, attorney for Center for Food Safety. “The public deserves an explanation from the agency. APHIS cannot be allowed to disregard the public’s right to access governmental records guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act.”

While it isn’t corn, wheat, or soy, alfalfa is the fourth most commonly grown GMO crop in the US. It is grown in every US state and asserts huge economic outcomes on farmers who grow it. Data now shows that 90% of all alfalfa grown in the US is covered in Round Up Ready chemicals.

ANH ~ Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award” –Right!

Thanks for taking that 1984 Doublespeak just a bit too far! The following article has accomplished what months of my own warnings and alarm soundings have failed to do: convinced some locals that “sustainability” does not always mean what they assume it means. We need to peek “Behind the Green Mask,” and write our own definitions and protections, lest our “Sustainable City” and “Responsible Regionalism” usher in an entire fleet of Trojan Horses.

UPDATE: I’ve just learned that Monsanto is now an official backer of Agenda 21!

Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award” –Right!
ANH-USA.org

This isn’t a spoof. In addition to this story, we’ll provide you with a round-up of GMO-related news, including why your neighbor may shortly be planting GMO grass right next to you. Action Alerts!

We won’t spend time in this article reiterating past research on why genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous—you probably already know that they can randomly produce toxic effects; introduce alarming levels of chemicals into our ecosystems and diet; and have been shown to cause serious health problems—but there have been some recent developments in GMO politics, science, and regulation that we want to share with you.

Here are the news items we’ll cover:

Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”?
GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert!
Is Someone Growing Unregulated GMO Grass Right Next to You? Action Alert!
All Eyes on New Global Precedent for GMO Contamination
Industrial Herbicides Are Even More Toxic Than We Thought
Is Industry Persuading Scientists to Quash Chilling Scientific Findings?

Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”?

When most of us think of sustainability, we think of environmental practices that will allow current and future generations to enjoy nutritious, locally farmed foods, clean water, pure air, and a non-toxic, natural world. As the concept has developed, it’s also become applicable to other realms, including economics and healthcare. For example, ANH-USA advocates for sustainable healthcare—practices that allow you to naturally maintain your health and extend your lifespan.

To the EPA, sustainability “creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.”

Taking these definitions into account, it may surprise you to learn that last month, Monsanto—yes, the same Monsanto whose expensive seeds caused an estimated 125,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide —was recognized as one of 2014’s Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.

Monsanto was ranked 37th on overall sustainability, 5th among American companies, and 5th globally in the materials industry by an organization called Corporate Knights (CK), a media and investment advisory company whose flagship magazine has one of the world’s largest circulations and is published quarterly as inserts in the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail (UK).

Ubiquitous as CK is, we find their criteria for “sustainability” —also called their “key performance indicators”—more than a little absurd:

Energy productivity
Carbon productivity
Water productivity
Waste productivity
Innovation capacity
Percent tax paid
CEO to Average Employee Pay
Pension fund status
Safety performance
Employee turnover
Leadership diversity
“Clean capitalism” pay link (rewards “companies that have set up mechanisms to link the remuneration of senior executives with the achievement of clean capitalism goals or targets”)

As one University of Toronto business ethics professor noted, “Only the first four actually have something to do with what most of us mean by ‘sustainability.’ The rest are…not relevant to the question of sustainable use of resources, or to the notion of sustainable economic growth that is compatible with environmental conservation.”

And even the first four have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with profits. After all, the award-givers define “energy productivity” as how much revenue companies can squeeze out of one unit of energy. The health of the environment literally has nothing to do with it.

For the countless natural health practitioners, organic farmers, consumers, and activists who unceasingly fight and sacrifice to “walk the walk” of sustainability, the bastardization of this important term is not a joke. It is offensive.

Perhaps “excellence in sustainability” is CK’s code for “excellence in propaganda.” As we’ve consistently reported, there is nothing sustainable about Monsanto and their GMO seeds.

For example, GMOs do not increase crop yields. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists report found that GMO soybeans do not produce increased yields, that GMO corn only marginally increases yields, and that no GMO crop has even been found to have intrinsic yield (meaning, yield in “real life,” and not laboratory, conditions).

We’re not quite sure who CK thinks they’re fooling, or what they get out of this nonsense. A more interesting question is why Monsanto is trying so hard to “greenwash” its image. Fonts inconsistent.

Meanwhile the Geneva-based Covalence group placed Monsanto dead last on a list of 581 global companies ranked by their reputation for ethics. For more on this, see chapter 11 of Crony Capitalism in America 2008–12, a book recently published by ANH-USA’s board president, Hunter Lewis.

GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert!

Since it purchased the company in 2008, Monsanto has been quietly cultivating its Seminis brand, as well as several other semi-anonymous brands, to breed and sell seeds that aren’t GMO.

To create these seeds, Monsanto and its minions are claiming to use nothing more than traditional crossbreeding (where plants with desirable qualities are laboriously “mated” until they yield progeny with the targeted traits). This process takes quite a bit of “time, land, and patience.”

Don’t be fooled: Monsanto isn’t using your grandparents’ crossbreeding. They’re engaging in a highly technical process that appears to takes place in a lab, not a field, and also appears to involve manipulation on the genetic level.

Worse yet, they don’t seem to want to make foods healthier. For example, Monsanto is attempting to breed fruits and vegetables that taste sweeter than their traditional counterparts. Read: they’re engineering a way to add more sugar than nature intended. The last thing that most people need is more sugar or fructose in their diet.

Is this a blatant attempt to win back the “hearts and minds” of consumers? According to one Monsanto official, “There isn’t a reputation silver bullet, but it helps.”

There is another important question to ask here: If Monsanto truly believes that GMOs are the future, why are they investing in conventional crops?

There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s possible that Monsanto doesn’t have faith in its own product: the company is already facing consumer pressure and emerging long-term health problems associated with GMOs.

For this reason, they could simply be hedging their bets. What if, in the future, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are harmful, or there’s a GMO-sparked environmental disaster, or the government decides to intervene? They may think they have to prepare for the possibility that GMOs may eventually fail. Seminis and its sister subsidies are Monsanto’s “insurance:” if GMOs crash and burn, they have a conventional cash cow to fall back on.

Action Alert! Please write to national grocery chains, and tell them you don’t want any Monsanto products—not “organic,” not conventional, and certainly not under any other name!

[Laura again: How interesting and yet not surprising that the Action Alert! page comes up but then I immediately get a Yahoo notification that the page cannot be found, refusing to allow connection to the page. You might need to speak directly to your grocery store and co-op buyers to let them know of the Monsanto deception with Seminis. I, personally, would not trust anything from these lying thugs, whether they slap an organic label on it or — perhaps more appropriately — a skull and cross bones. Actually, I would trust a poison label on anything Monsanto touches.]

Full ANH newsletter and Action Alerts here.

Wacko Birds and Faery Doodles

“Sanity in a world of insanity is insane.”

These two comments from The Dick, Dick and Harry Pixie Blitz have become their own post:

Posted by ohnwentsya on January 4, 2014 at 3:21 am edit

This needs a like button so we can click it repeatedly:-)

It’s doubly funny because demonic nasties really are super sensitive to faery dust-as in it usually makes them explode very like Roman candles.

Which sadly is so much easier to imagine than that lot experiencing genuine laughter not at anyone’s expense.

As the magic returns more and more I can easily imagine the whole collection of NWO nasty-pants being utterly besieged with frolicksome gremlins and newly freed house elves ( Dobby vs Dick! Lol)

Making plants illegal is the height of ridiculous. I see Brazilian Peppers and Kudzu are still handily winning their conflicts with human governments.

Tho the chemical hierarchy and control crowd do seem to have beat down poor dandelions out of the entire county where I live so our participation in preventing the stupid is still necessary.

Setting oneself or ones organization against Mama Nature seems very like Don Quixote and the windmills in the long run tho.

They can and have caused all sorts of difficulty for us of their (arguably) own species but long term the NWO has as much chance of beating the real powers on Earth as it has of winning a Nobel peace prize for its humanitarian work ( ok much less chance considering!);-)

Posted by laurabruno on January 4, 2014 at 11:12 am edit

Thanks, ohnwentsya! I love your comment. LOL, I am just waiting for someone to comment that I’m a wacko for this post. Because, you know, supporting convicted war criminals and the BigPharmafia is sane.

It’s true, I’ve gotten way behind on my fluoridated water and vaccines/mercury injections. What’s good for the gas chambers and the Mad Hatter would probably provide those extra nutrients and sanity I’ve missed through years of my organic food “orthorexia” pathological eating disorder. I’ve spent this entire post focused on a pixie blitz when what I probably need is more Wolf Blitzer. Maybe I can borrow someone’s tell-LIE-vision to get caught up on my programming. Wolf, then FOX to address those nasty CNN side effects, and then, in a few days, I’m sure I will need a prescription for Rachel Maddow to correct the FOX imbalance. Thankfully, the BigPharmafia funds all that programming with drug ads so I will be more likely to remember to take mine.

Cuz, you know… Believing in faeries and pixies is pretty nuts. 😉 I’ve seen the (mercury filled, fluorescent) Light! You know what this world needs?

More wars and bankers. You know what we really need to get rid of? Plants. They’re dangerous! (Except when tinkered with so that they contain an unholy mix of machines and DNA to withstand being sprayed by RoundUp and fertilizer.)

Popeye eating a can of spinach is so 20th century. I’ve seen the flickering Light: we should skip the spinach. Go straight to mainlining Agent Orange. If only those pesky regulations could be gotten rid of! What’s that? They’re trying to bring back Agent Orange? Phew! And to think without all that aluminum from chemtrails I might have remembered something about Vietnam. Those WOes… Always looking out for us. 😉

European Commission to Ban Heirloom Seeds and Criminalize Plants & Seeds Not Registered with Government

All in the name of “safety,” of course!

In case the May 2012 EU banning of most herbs didn’t wake up the continent, here’s another Beyond Orwell step in the global monopoly of all food and medicine known as Codex Alimentarius. For those who haven’t yet connected the dots, each continent focuses on implementing only a few of the most absurd abuses, and then the TPP and TTIP, Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic “trade” treaties swoop in to enforce the lowest common denominator of human rights and food quality.

Are we really going to let Jabba the Hut reveal himself as prophet? “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” ~Henry Kissinger

I would like to believe that non-compliance will rule the day, but the laws allowed to pass and the voluntary and bizarre obedience to them never cease to amaze me. I don’t think this one is a done deal quite yet. If you live in Europe, please do what you can — whether that be purging magick (flush those control freaks and their legislation down the toilet), call your governments, gather heirloom seeds now and plant with abandon next spring, and/or work at the local level to establish food sovereignty laws and guerrilla gardening cohorts.

European Commission To Ban Heirloom Seeds and Criminalize Plants & Seeds Not Registered With Government – See more at: http://healthydebates.com/european-commission-ban-heirloom-seeds-criminalize-plants-seeds-registered-government/#sthash.vCMTqZeb.dpuf

Healthy Debates

(Arjun Walia) The European Commission is changing the European Union’s plant legislation, apparently to enhance food safety across the continent. This move has sparked a heavy opposition from many, saying that the measure will threaten seed diversity and favour large agrochemical businesses. This new law creates new powers to classify and regulate all plant life anywhere in Europe. You can view the entire proposal in the list of sources at the bottom of this article.

The “Plant Reproductive Material Law” regulates all plants. It contains restrictions on vegetables and woodland trees, as well as all other plants of any species. It will be illegal to grow, reproduce, or trade any vegetable seed or tree that has not been been tested and approved by the government, more specifically the “EU Plant Variety Agency.” This agency will be responsible for making a list of approved plants and an annual fee must also be forwarded to the agency if growers would like to keep what they grow on the list. The new law basically puts the government in charge of all plants and seeds in Europe, and prevents home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. If they did, they would now be considered criminals.

The draft text of the law has already been changed several times due to a large backlash from gardeners.

This law will immediately stop the professional development of vegetable varieties for home gardeners, organic growers and small scale market farmers. Home gardeners have really different needs – for example they grow by hand, not machine, and can’t or don’t want to use such powerful chemical sprays. There’s no way to register the varieties suitable for home use as they don’t meet the strict criteria of the PLant Variety Agency, which is only concerned about approving the sort of seed used by industrial farmers – Ben Gabel, Director of The Real Seed Catalogue

It seems the government is taking over everything, virtually all plants, vegetables seeds and gardeners are to be registered by the government. What’s even more disturbing is that all heirloom seeds will be criminalized. This means that saving seeds from from one generation to the next will become a criminal act!

This law was written for the needs of the globalized farm seed industry, who supply seed by the ton to industrial farmers. It should not apply at all to seed used by home gardeners and small market growers. Freely reproducible seeds should be a human right, they are part of our heritage.

I understand this is to protect the business of big agri-companies, but registration and testing should be voluntary for all non GMO, non-patented and non hybrid seed.
– See more at: http://healthydebates.com/european-commission-ban-heirloom-seeds-criminalize-plants-seeds-registered-government/#sthash.vCMTqZeb.dpuf