Acne.org Products
Maybe they'll discover the solution is for the cows to consume their natural diet and live outdoors in pastures. Not GMO'd corn, soy and ground up dead cows while crammed into pens.
Scientists will investigate ways to switch off a human gene that is thought to cause temperamental behaviour in both cows and humans in a new $1.35 million primary industries research project.
Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin, who announced the project ahead of the Australia's National Beef Expo 2009 in Rockhampton, says the new ground-breaking discovery could change the quality of beef.
"The genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans are also found in cattle,'' Mr Mulherin said.
"We already know there is an association between the temperament of cattle and the tenderness of the meat, the more temperamental, the less tender.
"So if our scientists can learn how to switch off the gene that causes irritability in cattle then we can produce more tender meat which has a higher value to industry.''
Other factors to boost beef profits include annual calving and cows calving earlier in the season, which could lead to heavier offspring, he said.
Research leader, scientist Brian Burns, said the project focused on a new field of epigenetics, the study of modifications to genes other than changes in the DNA sequence itself.
This is from a blog called Circle of 13 with a delightful subtitle:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry
Many dont fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the U.S.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of Californias labeling requirements for carcinogensviii:
Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California.
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email. http://articles.merc...20327_DNL_art_1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bullet points on how GMO crops are producing super pests from the above article.
- Corn rootworm has developed resistance to one of the genes inserted in the genetically engineered (GE) corn crop that is designed to kill them. Twenty-two of the top experts on corn pests are urging the US Environmental Protection Agency to take action to halt the use of such GE crops
- Roundup-ready crops are also producing resistance; in this case herbicide-resistant superweeds. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops, which of course dramatically increases the amount of pesticides you ingest from consuming such foods
If anybody really wants to change the world, focus on changing the minds of the people. Not the government!
If the people demand grass-fed, non GM, organic, self-sustainable food, the producers will find a way to supply it.
That would be what we are doing.. ????
The "Big Ag" has more money, influence, and power in American government than the people will ever have. Even if this did go through, the mandate to label GM foods would do nothing to stop their multibillion dollar industry.
The "Big Ag" supplies us with most of our food. GM soy, corn, and other crops are in 70% of every processed food and livestock in America today.
Placing a tiny label on GM foods will do very little to change the attitude of the masses. It's common knowledge that being overweight causes a myriad of health problems and yet Americans continue to be most overweight people in the world. The reality is the people that can't afford to buy organic non-GM foods now, won't be able to afford them afterwards. The people that don't care enough to buy organic now, won't care enough to switch after afterwards.
Average American:
"Apparently I've been eating GM food for twenty years, why should I stop now just because some little label pops up? Especially if it's on brands I've been using for decades."
It's laughable to compare a cancer warning label to a GM food label. I hardly think that's "proof positive".
Since the patent on Monsanto's GM soy is set to expire in the next two years, we are going to see an increase, not a decrease of GM foods in the future.
I'm not saying I have the solution. But I am saying that GM food is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Personally, I think GM food will be key in the next 50 years to feeding our growing population. If that makes me "part of the problem", then so be it.
The people dying to feed you:
http://www.alternet....gX_NRX&rd=1&t=5
Highlights:
every year farmworkers are dying from thirst and heat exposure due to inadequate water and shade.
toxic pesticide exposures that send farmworkers to the hospital--up to 20,000 are poisoned annually according to the Centers for Disease Control.
currently, taxpayers subsidize agribusiness to the tune of roughly $15 billion a year--most of it benefiting large-scale production of additives for fast food and fuels that deplete our health and the environment.
----------------------
The new Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids
In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the
Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a
Biotechnology Basics Activity Book
for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book -- called
Look Closer at Biotechnology
-- looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale.
Lie #1: "Biotechnology is one method being used to help farmers grow more food." (page 7)
This statement is patently false.
In 2009, in the wake of similar studies, the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the data on genetically engineered crops, including USDA statistics. Their report --
Failure to Yield -- was the first major effort to evaluate in detail the overall yields of GE crops after more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States. According to the definitive UCS study, "GE has done little to increase overall crop yields." A number of studies indicate in fact that GE soybeans, for example, actually produce lower yields than non-genetically engineered varieties.
Research conducted by the India research group, Navdanya, and reported in
The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes turns up the same results:
Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya's research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto's claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto's Indian advertising campaign reports a 50-percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised. (Page 11).
The claim that GE crops increase agricultural yields is a blatant lie. Equally untrue is the industry's claim that it is motivated by the desire to feed the hungry of the world. As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out: "For the most part, genetic engineering techniques are being applied to crops important to the industrialized world, not crops on which the world's hungry depend." Where does all the genetically engineered soy and corn -- two of the largest GE crops -- end up? In animal feed, processed junk foods -- and school lunchrooms. Precious little goes to feed the hungry in impoverished regions.
One of the sub-arguments related to increasing yields is the biotech industry's claim that GMO crops are more resistant to pests -- hence more of the crops survive. In Look Closer at Biotechnology kids are told that agricultural biotechnology is a "precise way to make seeds with special qualities. These seeds will allow farmers to grow plants that are . . . more resistant to pests . . ." In fact widespread commercialization of herbicide-resistant and Bt-spliced GE crops has engendered a growing army of superweeds and superpests, oblivious to all but the most powerful and toxic pesticides.
What we should be teaching kids in science class is what scientists have been warning for years -- that any attempt to increase resistance to pests through genetic engineering will ultimately fail. Insects -- and diseases -- will build up a tolerance over time, and evolve into stronger and stronger strains. That's how nature works -- and even Monsanto can't fool Mother Nature
- corn rootworms have now developed resistance to these GE mutants.
- a new generation of insect larvae has evolved, and is eating away at the roots of Monsanto's Bt corn
It then goes on to cover several more lies such as how they help farmers and the environment, and how they are growing foods to help make people healthier.
Why Hot Dogs, Chicken Nuggets and Some Other "Meats" Are Way Grosser Than 'Pink Slime'
I've no idea why you felt the need to tell me all those painfully obvious things about big food. All those would be problems and the very point behind this thread. Again I have to express puzzlement by your posts. Here goes. ??????
Synthetic omega 3s added to all those products that now have "omega 3s' on the label made out of GM'd soil fungus and algae. Allowed in organic products.
Martek Biosciences Corporation's product is an omega 3/omega-6 oil (DHA/ARA) synthesized from fermented algae and soil fungus.
The oil is extracted from this biomass using hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics. It's added in all kinds of prepared processed foods, including baby food.
http://articles.merc...20401_SNL_Art_1
Also, in the same article:
Is the U.S. Becoming a "Dumping Ground" for Substandard Products?
Food in the European Union (EU) seems to be getting saferv, while American food may be becoming more dangerous. The EU has been progressively tightening their standards, while the U.S. has been loosening theirs. Consider herbicides, for example.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and is the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is causing incredible damage to our environment. As a result of Monsanto's lobbying, a U.S. regulation passed in 2011 increased the tolerance for residues of the herbicide glyphosate on corn. The tolerance is even higher than the one allowed by international standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commissionvi has established a maximum residue level for glyphosate on corn at 5 parts per million, but the U.S. regulation now allows 13 parts per million.vii
The EU herbicide/pesticide legislation is probably the strictest in the world, a testament to their commitment to consumer protection. Besides limiting these chemicals, they ban genetically engineered foods and the hormone rBGH, whereas the U.S. continues to allow them. Many more such examples can be found.
As the European Union and other nations have begun to tighten their environmental standards, manufacturers have begun to use America as a dumping ground for consumer goods that fail to meet other nations' standards for toxic chemical content. Manufacturers ship wood, toys, electronics, pesticides and cosmetics to the U.S. containing substances that are banned or restricted elsewhere, because they raise the risk of cancer or cause reproductive or neurological damage.
Think about all of the dangerous and poor quality products we're importing from China that make the news now on a regular basis. Unlike the European Union, which uses a "precautionary principle" that prescribes protective steps whenever there is scientific evidence of risks to public health or the environment, the U.S. EPA relies on voluntary steps from the industries themselves. This model of consumer protection has unfortunately been swallowed up by corporate corruption. If the government is unable to provide the oversight needed to ensure public safety, then it's up to YOU, the consumer, to protect yourself.
Where have all the Farms Gone?
During the past 50 years, animal agriculture has gone through a seismic shift in the United States. Long gone are the iconic scenes of American landscapes dotted with family farms and red barns. Most of these have been replaced by industrialized facilities controlled by large corporations that rely on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In this system, cavernous warehouses crowded with thousandseven tens of thousandsof animals form the equivalent of an agricultural assembly line. And independent farmers, once the cornerstone of rural America, struggle to compete in a marketplace dominated by a few big corporations....
The CAFO model relies on three interlinked practices in order to increase profits:
- Maximize the number of animals squeezed into the least amount of space and require the fewest number of employees to provide care.
- Administer continual doses of antibiotics to the animals to prevent the diseases prevalent in their close-quarters housing.
- Minimize the disposal cost for the substantial volume of animal waste produced by the facilities.
These practices may turn a profit for the big corporations, but they are disastrous for human health and the environment. Up to 1 billion tons of manure is generated by livestock operations every year, much of it from CAFOs. In some cases, the waste is stored in large lagoons or open piles that can leak or spill into adjacent land and water. In other cases, manure is liberally spread on fields in such overwhelming concentrations that soil and crops often cannot impede all of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens from reaching public waterways.
http://www.pewenviro...one-85899378434
And our government agencies do everything they can to hinder small farmers while aiding large corporations.
I had an article yesterday that I was going to post about how it's against the law in Michigan to have free roaming pigs, i.e. the way pigs should be raised.
Disastrous spill of hog waste into river:
About 2/3 of the fruits you see in groceries stores are all genetically engineered.
For example, they put fish gene into a fruit gene so that the fruit does not die in extreme cold tempratures. Others are made so that they don't produce seeds or produce very low quality bad seeds so the farmers would have to buy ones from the company not actually reuse the seeds again. It's all business and money.
Wild strawberries are very small and they taste much better than the strawberries we see today. Trust me, I found one while I was travelling in asian, they are like marble small but so delicious, too bad its rare to find.
About 2/3 of the fruits you see in groceries stores are all genetically engineered.
For example, they put fish gene into a fruit gene so that the fruit does not die in extreme cold tempratures. Others are made so that they don't produce seeds or produce very low quality bad seeds so the farmers would have to buy ones from the company not actually reuse the seeds again. It's all business and money.
Wild strawberries are very small and they taste much better than the strawberries we see today. Trust me, I found one while I was travelling in asian, they are like marble small but so delicious, too bad its rare to find.
That isn't all genetic engineering. It's called cultivation which has been going on for millenia. And there is hybridization which has been going on for many decades. We've been growing larger strawberries for a few centuries at least, well before anyone was capable of genetic modification.
About 2/3 of the fruits you see in groceries stores are all genetically engineered.
For example, they put fish gene into a fruit gene so that the fruit does not die in extreme cold tempratures. Others are made so that they don't produce seeds or produce very low quality bad seeds so the farmers would have to buy ones from the company not actually reuse the seeds again. It's all business and money.
Wild strawberries are very small and they taste much better than the strawberries we see today. Trust me, I found one while I was travelling in asian, they are like marble small but so delicious, too bad its rare to find.
That isn't all genetic engineering. It's called cultivation which has been going on for millenia. And there is hybridization which has been going on for many decades. We've been growing larger strawberries for a few centuries at least, well before anyone was capable of genetic modification.
Well genetic manipulation has existed for thousan
ds of years actually. It started by the time of farming, where they would selectively breed organisms, which soon lost its "wild" quality. We simply started to chose whats best for us. Not to offend anyone but its like, only people who are above 6ft are allowed to have families and reproduce. Soon the world would only consist of tall people.
The corn we now have can't release the seed on its own, it sure is better for us to eat but if that corn was grown in the wild, it would die and vanish fast due to its inability to reproduce on its own.
For example, corn we see today is completely different from what it used to be in its wild form.
Besides all the damage to our health and the environment and the creation of the pesticide resistant 'pests,' it ruins poor farmers all over the world. Few can afford to buy the high priced seed and the pesticides and then pay the royalties. Some get loans and are bankrupt when the crops fail, hence the suicide rate in India. Others try to continue saving the seed from the crops they've been growing for thousands of years, but the GM crops growing nearby contaminate the DNA ruining their seed. They are forced to give up farming, move to the city to live in the sums and have their children beg on the streets.
Biggest Brazil soy state loses taste for GMO seed
Farmers in Brazil's Mato Grosso, the country's top soy state, are shunning once-heralded, genetically modified soy varieties in favor of conventional seeds after the hi-tech type showed poor yields.
"We're seeing less and less planting of GMO soy around here. It doesn't give consistent performance," said Jeferson Bif, who grows soy and corn on a large 1,800 hectare farm in Ipiranga do Norte, near the key Mato Grosso soy town of Sorriso.
He said he obtained average yields of 58 bags (60 kg) per hectare with conventional soy last season while fields planted with GMO soy in the same year yielded 10 bags less.
http://www.reuters.c...E52C5AB20090313
Brazil court battle for GM soya
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/1293132.stm
Latest GMO fiasco: Mad Soy Disease Strikes Brazil
They call it mad soy disease in Brazil, where it has been spreading from the north, causing yield losses of up to 40 percent, most notably in the states of Mato Grosso, Tocantins and Goias.
Like its namesake, mad cow disease, it is incurable [1, 2, 3].
This is the latest GMO fiasco to surface since our report on the meltdown in the USA [4] (GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA, SiS 46), China [5] (GM-Spin Meltdown in China, SiS 47), and Argentina [6] (Argentinas Roundup Human Tragedy, SiS 48).
http://laudyms.wordp...strikes-brazil/
GM soy: the high cost of the quest for 'green gold'
Scientists and villagers in rural Paraguay are questioning the health and environmental impact of GM soy.
http://www.telegraph...green-gold.html
GM soy increases poverty, threatens health in South America - farmer advocates
http://www.gmwatch.e...armer-advocates
More examples of how GM crops 'help' poor farmers in underdeveloped countries.
Mexican Farmers Mobilize Against NAFTA's Disastrous Corn Policies & Monsanto's GE Corn
http://www.organicco...rticle_6629.cfm
Mexico Corn Contamination: How Monsanto & University of California Tried to Silence Dr. Ignacio Chapela
http://www.organicco...ticle_17843.cfm
GMO Contamination in Mexico's Cradle of Corn
http://archive.truthout.org/121208D
The last days of Mexican corn
http://www.nwrage.or...ys-mexican-corn
Then there's all the suicides amongst Monsanto Cotton farmers in Indian.
this is from an article about a book on how Japenese women don't get old or fat:
The emphasis of Japanese cooking is to use what is fresh and in season. According to author Moriyama, Japanese supermarkets are cathedrals of freshness. Food is not only dated, its timedJapanese women buy fish, meat, vegetables, or prepared meals that are timed by the half hour they were packed that day
Read more:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Massive Con" Causing a Suicide Every 30 Minutes
http://articles.merc...20403_DNL_art_1
There are four primary factors directly related to the use of genetically engineered seed that contribute heavily to this grim situation:
- Compared to traditional seed, genetically engineered seeds are very expensive and have to be repurchased every planting season
- Genetically engineered crops require much more water to grow, have much higher requirements for fertilizer and pesticide, in spite of Monsanto's claims to the contraryvii and, in spite of their cost to farmers, provide NO increased yield
While companies like
Monsanto have plenty of blood on their hands, additional social, economic and environmental factors make matters worse for these small rural farms:
- The "Green Revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s has funneled money toward the middle class and away from the farming/peasant classes
- Rising prices for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm supplies, along with falling prices for farm commodities, are forcing farmers to take out high-interest loans from opportunistic moneylenders
- A trend from polyculture farming (diverse crops) to monoculture farming (primarily cotton) has depleted the soil and increased crop infestation by opportunistic pests
- Limited water supplies, periodic drought, decreased monsoonal rainfall, and poor access to irrigation
- Dishonest, predatory salesmen; lack of government support; and grossly inadequate government relief programs
The introduction of hybrid seeds marked the beginning of the current issues plaguing Indian farmers today. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, Indian farmers grew diverse food crops, but that all changed with the Green Revolution as modern machinery, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and hybrid seeds were introduced from the West. Most farmers in India now plant cash crops for export, rather than rice, legumes, millet, and other foods for local consumption.
The last sentence, coupled with water shortages are the reasons for world hunger.
Genetic Engineering Brings Magnitude 10 Dangers
Genetically tinkering with the human food supply what could possibly go wrong? Plenty, as it turns out. The potential dangers of genetically engineered food run the gamut, including:
[*]Contamination of organic crop varieties
[*]Development of herbicide-resistant super weeds
[*]Organ disruption, cancer, and increased rate of miscarriage and infertility in animals raised on genetically engineered feed
[*]Air and rain samples contaminated with glyphosate, and waterways in agricultural areas contaminated with a genetically engineered bug-killing protein
[*]A brand new organism related specifically to genetically engineered crops, found to be responsible for disease and sudden death in both plants and mammals
[*]The potential risks of genetically engineered crops are so enormous that I have devoted an entire segment of Mercola.com to the subject.
About 2/3 of the fruits you see in groceries stores are all genetically engineered.
For example, they put fish gene into a fruit gene so that the fruit does not die in extreme cold tempratures. Others are made so that they don't produce seeds or produce very low quality bad seeds so the farmers would have to buy ones from the company not actually reuse the seeds again. It's all business and money.
Wild strawberries are very small and they taste much better than the strawberries we see today. Trust me, I found one while I was travelling in asian, they are like marble small but so delicious, too bad its rare to find.
That isn't all genetic engineering. It's called cultivation which has been going on for millenia. And there is hybridization which has been going on for many decades. We've been growing larger strawberries for a few centuries at least, well before anyone was capable of genetic modification.
Well genetic manipulation has existed for thousan
ds of years actually. It started by the time of farming, where they would selectively breed organisms, which soon lost its "wild" quality. We simply started to chose whats best for us. Not to offend anyone but its like, only people who are above 6ft are allowed to have families and reproduce. Soon the world would only consist of tall people.
The corn we now have can't release the seed on its own, it sure is better for us to eat but if that corn was grown in the wild, it would die and vanish fast due to its inability to reproduce on its own.
For example, corn we see today is completely different from what it used to be in its wild form.
Yes. Of course. It started before farming actually. It started when humans (and other animals for that matter) tended to pick the largest fruit, nut or whatever and leave the smallest which means the seeds of the largest fruit gets distributed around.
But that is not Genetic Modification. That is breeding. And there is nothing wrong with that.
USDA Says Rule Changes to Hasten Modified Crop Approvals
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/genetically-modified-crops-will-get-faster-approval-usda-says.html
Seed companies including Monsanto Co. (MON), the worlds largest, will get speedier regulatory reviews of their genetically modified crops under forthcoming rule changes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.
The goal is to cut by half the time needed to approve biotech crops from the current average of three years, Michael Gregoire, a USDA deputy administrator, said today in a telephone interview. The changes will take effect when theyre published in the Federal Register, probably in March, he said.
Approvals that took six months in the 1990s have lengthened because of increased public interest, more legal challenges and the advent of national organic food standards, Gregoire said. U.S. farmers worry they may be disadvantaged as countries such as Brazil approve new technologies faster, said Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association.
It is a concern from a competition standpoint, Censky said in a telephone interview.
Faster approvals also benefit seed developers by allowing them to profit from new products sooner, Jeff Windau, a St. Louis-based analyst at Edward Jones & Co., said in a telephone interview.
The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit group that has successfully challenged approvals of Monsantos Roundup Ready sugar-beet and alfalfa crops, said the rule change is aimed at preventing opponents of modified crops from voicing criticism of the agencys methods.
Working the System
They are trying to work the system so they can dismiss public comments more quickly and easily in order to speed things up, Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the group, said in a telephone interview. Its a rubber-stamp system. A real regulatory system will occasionally reject something.
Under the rule changes, new versions of existing crop technologies, such as corn that produces a naturally occurring pesticide, would undergo a review lasting about 13 months, Gregoire said. That would be accomplished by making the agencys determination final after a 30-day public review period, he said.
The thing is, corn already produces naturally occurring pesticides. All plants do. Those would be the things we have intolerances for and damage the digestive tract.
in an attempt to keep the American people from eating shit (literally), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently inspects all chicken and turkey carcasses for things like bruises, bile and feces before they are sent to further processing.However, the UDSA is now considering a pilot program that would eliminate that inspection and allow private poultry processing plants to do whatever they want. The USDA is holding a public commenting period on this proposed change through April 26.
Please, click here to sign our petition opposing the privatization of poultry inspection. We will submit your signatures and comments to the USDA before the April 26 deadline.
Why is the USDA considering this change? To cut government jobs and allow private companies to makemillions:
In an article from early March, Food Safety News dug up[PDF] showing the program is projected to save FSIS up to $95 million over three years, and to give a $250 million boost to poultry companies.
And the result of this will be Americans eating shit, literally. When a privatization program like this was tried out in the 1990s, the crap that ended up in the food was gag-worthy:
This isn't technically about food but it is about corn and our stupid government agencies:
Late last year the Environmental Protection Agency approved fuel with up to 15 percent ethanol for vehicles manufactured after 2001. You may start seeing E15 at gas stations as early as this summer. This is not good news for consumers or the environment.
Up to now, standard vehicle fuel, known as E10, has been capped at 10 percent corn ethanol and 90 percent gasoline.But E15 is more corrosive and runs hotter. It can void some vehicle warranties. It has been shown to cause severe damage to small engines like lawnmowers.
Fact is, E15 not only wreaks havoc on your engine, but also on the environment. Higher amounts of corn ethanol in gas have been linked to increased air pollution and lower gas mileage. Growing corn for ethanol production increases use of pesticides and fertilizer, which pollute streams, lakes and groundwater. Over-planting of corn destroys wildlife habitat.
From the Environmental Working Group
Corn is a low yield per acre crop that requires tons of nitrogen and other harmful fertilizer. And most is GM corn. And heavily (and stupidly) subsidized) We should not be finding more things to do with it. Not fuel. Not supposedly biodegradable plastic. Not feed for animals that should be out in pastures. Not vegetable oil and crisco for cooking, Etc.
Whenever you hear congressman and others argue that it takes more fuel to make ethanol than it produces, they are right. But primarily because of the insistence on using corn.
The only way corn should be grown is the way the Native American's did it. Cared for by hand and fertilized by growing it with beans that provide the needed nitrogen in the soil. And it should only be grown for people food.
Vermont Surrenders
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin has less than two weeks to either stand with the 90% of his constituents who support a mandatory labeling bill for genetically engineered foods - or cave in to Monsanto's threat to sue the state if legislators pass H.722.
The bill that once appeared destined to pass on the merits of scientific evidence, overwhelming public support, and support of the majority of Vermont's progressive legislators, now appears doomed - unless Vermont voters succeed in changing the Governor's mind.
If the Governor's words this past week are any indication, he's already surrendered to Monsanto. But Vermonters, not known for backing down from a fight, are challenging legislators to take on the biotech industry. They're even offering to raise money for the state's defense.
Monsanto's Enforcers
In the U.S., Monsanto has threatened to sue states like Vermont if they pass laws that require labels on genetically engineered food and ban the routine industry practice of labeling or marketing GMO-tainted foods as "natural" or "all natural."
In the U.S. and Canada, Monsanto has sued more than 150 farmers and threatened thousands of others, for refusing to pay for "intellectual property theft" after their fields were contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetically engineered crops.
In Argentina, thugs assaulted a well-known scientist, Andres Carrasco, who had carried out experiments demonstrating the extreme toxicity of Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup.
In Argentina, industry-hired gunmen invaded the homes of activist mothers, threatening them for trying to stop their children from being poisoned by the massive aerial spraying of herbicides on Monsanto's genetically engineered soybeans.
Please take action in solidarity with Argentinian activist Sofia Gatica who was visited by an armed man who warned her not to "screw around with the soybeans" when she launched a campaign to ban Monsanto's Roundup-resistant soybeans, after her 3-day-old daughter died of kidney failure from pesticide poisoning.
And much more here in the Organic Consumers Association newsletter http://www.organicconsumers.org/
About bees, Bill Gates, the privatization of water supplies
So they've gathered a million signatures to get 'the Right to Know Gentically Engineered Food Act' on the ballot in California in November. So now what they need to know is communicate the truth to the voters to counter the scare and bullying tactics that Monsanto and other industry giants will use such as claims that labeling will be expensive and raise food prices. Tactics that have been successful in other states. Of course, they spend far more in lobbying and false advertising than anyone ever would on labels.
As California is the 8th largest economy in the world, getting this legislation passed there will be huge. So it is a good place to focus whatever funds and efforts you have to donate to the cause. Especially since our federal agencies are not on our side, but are lackeys of the industries they serve.
More info on the California effort: http://articles.merc...20501_DNL_art_1
More info on how roundup ready and other GM crops work: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/01/genetically-engineered-foods.aspx?e_cid=20120501_DNL_art_2 i.e:
glyphosate differs from other herbicides in a number of ways. While most herbicides act as mineral chelators, meaning they immobilize certain nutrients, thereby killing the plant, glyphosate differs from other chelators in that it chelates several different mineral nutrients required for proper plant health. This is what is meant by it being "non-specific, broad-based" herbicide. It can limit uptake of a variety of nutrients by as much as 70 percent. As a result, the nutritional content of genetically engineered (GE) plants is also
profoundly compromised.
Another factor that sets glyphosate apart is its biocide activity. It stimulates some soil organisms while being quite toxic to others. Overall, its presence disturbs the natural balance of soil microbe and alters the soil biology, creating "super-pathogens" that can be very harmful. This also translates to greater danger for animals and humans who consume affected crops. For example, toxic botulism is now becoming a more common cause of death in dairy cows whereas such deaths used to be extremely rare. The reason it didn't occur before was because beneficial organisms served as natural controls to keep the Clostridium botulinum in check. Without them, the Clostridium botulinum is allowed to proliferate in the animal's intestines and produce lethal amounts of toxins.
According to Dr. Huber, there's currently enough residual glyphosate in animal feed and food to make an otherwise benign organism lethal and it may already be rearing its ugly head.
Bt crops are genetically engineered not to withstand glyphosate, like the Roundup Ready crops are, but rather they're designed to create their own internal pesticideBt toxinwhich ruptures the bellies of the bugs that eat it... Bt toxin has now been detected in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, indicating that this genetic feature is transferred into the system of those who eat such crops.
As if that's not enough, research data also shows that even low levels of glyphosate are very toxic to liver, kidney, and testicular cells, and to your endocrine system. Still, despite mounting evidence, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refuses to act to protect the health of Americans by revealing which foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Monsanto bought out a bee research firm that had identified pesticides as a leading contributor to declining bee populations.
Researchers at Beelogics, a leading bee research firm, identified pesticides as a leading contributor to declining bee populations. In late September of 2011, Monsanto, a major producer of genetically modified foods, bought the Beelogics firm for an undisclosed sum. It now seems likely that Monsanto's funding will manipulate research to point the blame away from chemicals used in GMO food production.
The bee decline affects all U.S. citizens. Bees are responsible for pollinating 1/3 of U.S. crops and are essential to sustaining our ecological lifespan. It is vital that researchers can identify the true cause of the decline so that responsible citizens can learn how to help the bee population.
If the USDA uses Monsanto-funded research from Beelogics, it will essentially be sacrificing scientific integrity for corporate interests. Please support the truth of scientific research and tell the USDA not to use research funded by Monsanto.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/786/975/528/usda-dont-use-monsanto-funded-research/
Another way to destroy small farmers. Seizing their money on phony charges and costing them tons of legal fees so they have no funds for the seed, feed and whatnot they need for the next year/seasons crops.
http://foodfreedomgr...-farmers-money/
Quite similar to the bullying done by the petrochemical industry. You should read this article about the thirdworldification of America. In the third world, there's been no one to enforce protections and to require cleanup. The Niger Delta has had the equivalent of the Valdez oil spill every year for decades. And look what's been happening here --the removal of restrictions and regulations, opening up of protected lands, passing state laws that prevent locals from restricting fracking, etc.
Monsanto bought out a bee research firm that had identified pesticides as a leading contributor to declining bee populations.
Researchers at Beelogics, a leading bee research firm, identified pesticides as a leading contributor to declining bee populations. In late September of 2011, Monsanto, a major producer of genetically modified foods, bought the Beelogics firm for an undisclosed sum. It now seems likely that Monsanto's funding will manipulate research to point the blame away from chemicals used in GMO food production.
The bee decline affects all U.S. citizens. Bees are responsible for pollinating 1/3 of U.S. crops and are essential to sustaining our ecological lifespan. It is vital that researchers can identify the true cause of the decline so that responsible citizens can learn how to help the bee population.
If the USDA uses Monsanto-funded research from Beelogics, it will essentially be sacrificing scientific integrity for corporate interests. Please support the truth of scientific research and tell the USDA not to use research funded by Monsanto.
http://www.thepetiti...unded-research/
Not surprising at all. God i hate this company
"Twinkies cheaper than carrots and Coca-Cola competitive with water"
They are still working on the 2012 Farm bill and still plan to give most of the funds to big Ag and the foods that make us sick while cutting what little they gave to anyone/thing else. http://www.nationofchange.org/why-you-re-fat-1337225313 This bill also includes food stamps and international aid, btw.
You can also add your support to the center for Rural Affairs testimony in favor of more (not cut) funds for rural america and aid for small, new farmers like this returning vet: Their testimony:
QuoteThe 2012 Farm Bill must support the best of rural America - family farming and ranching, entrepreneurship, and vibrant communities. To that end, the next Farm Bill must include the following:1. Limit farm payments - Cap unlimited payments. They subsidize the nation's largest farms to drive smaller operations out of business. Unlimited subsidies are the single most wasteful and counterproductive feature of current farm policy. Both farm subsidies and crop insurance premium subsidies should be subject to caps, so that payments are targeted to the small and mid-sized farmers who need them most.
2. Protect conservation programs - Conservation and good stewardship of agricultural lands should be encouraged and rewarded. The 2008 Farm Bill included several conservation programs that were steps in the right direction, and the next Farm Bill should improve and enhance these programs. The Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Organic Initiative are especially valuable incentives for farmers to conserve natural resources on their land. The 2012 Farm Bill should maintain strong support for both these and other conservation programs.
3. Invest in rural America - Investment in rural development has fallen by nearly one-third since 2003. Reversing this decline is critical to creating and sustaining vibrant rural communities. At minimum, the Farm Bill should fund two critical programs to support rural entrepreneurship - the Value Added Producer Grants Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. The latter provides loans, training and help with business and marketing plans to enterprises with up to ten employees.
4. Support beginning farmer and ranchers - Getting started in farming can be expensive and extremely difficult for even the most motivated new farmer. The 2012 Farm Bill must seek a cross-cutting comprehensive approach to address beginning farmer and rancher needs. Among other things, it should provide funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, increase set-asides for beginning farmers and ranchers in conservation programs, and make credit easier to obtain.
By incorporating these four critical elements, the 2012 Farm Bill will support our small towns and rural communities in building a better future. It will create good jobs, and reflect the highest values of all of America.
Quote---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justin Doerr
Date: Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Subject: I'm a Farmer & a Vet & I told Congress
I never thought Id be testifying in front of Congress. But last week, there I was.
My name is Justin Doerr, and I am a beginning farmer from Nebraska and an Iraq War Veteran. When I got back from the service, I had the desire to farm but did not have the capital and resources to begin farming.
Last Thursday, I told Congress what I wanted for the Farm Bill: better beginning farmer programs so people like me can get started in agriculture. You can see my full testimony here [PDF].
You can tell Congress what you think too! Click here and sign your name to the Center for Rural Affairs testimony before Thursday.
Thank you,
Justin Doerr
Iraq War Veteran and Nebraska beginning farmer
Quote
This article says that CAFO chickens are fed arsenic in their food to manage the parrasites the birds are so prone to when crammed together in their own waste. This article also says it gives the meat a pinkish tinge preferred by consumers. As usual, the practice has been banned in Europe for a decade. http://nutritionfacts.org/blog/2011/09/19/dr-oz-apple-juice-and-arsenic-chicken-may-have-10-times-more/
And this video from the same source says that 1 can of tuna per week has the same amount of mercury as having 29 amalgam fillings in your mouth. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/amalgam-fillings-vs-canned-tuna/
This might be a good thing. We are apparently reaching peak phosphorous, much like with petroleum, helium and other minerals. All the easy and cheap to obtain phosphorous has been mined. Which means cheap artificial fertilizer won't be so cheap. http://www.treehugge...ls-concern.html
Note that most of the flouride they insist on putting in our water is a waste product of the artificial phosphorous fertilizer industry.
Some info on Flouride:
Fluoride is a Cumulative Poison
It's important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative poison. Approximately 98 percent of the fluoride you ingest in water is absorbed into your blood through your gastrointestinal tract. From there, it enters your body's cellular tissues. On average, about 50 percent of the fluoride you ingest each day gets excreted through your kidneys.
Whether this happens or not is highly dependent on the presence of calcium, magnesium, Vitamin C, and selenium in your bloodstream, to which the fluoride will bind so that it no longer is seeking calcium-rich tissues that make up so much of your body. The remainder accumulates in your teeth and bones,iii pineal gland,iv and other tissues, including your blood vessels.
According to the featured study:"Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients."
The amount deposited into your bones and teeth varies depending on your age. In children, more than 50 percent of an ingested dose of fluoride is deposited in bone, but in adults only about 10 percent is stored there. As the number of research studies into the toxic effects of fluoride has increased, there is now support for a rather long list of potential health problems related to fluoride accumulation in your body
..........It's important to understand that the "fluoride" added to your drinking water is NOT the natural mineral, nor a pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Instead, the product most commonly used is another chemical fluoride compounda toxic waste product from phosphate fertilizer plants.
There are three basic compounds that can be used for fluoridating water supplies:xv
- Sodium fluoride (NaF)
- Sodium silicofluoride
- Hydrofluorosilicic acid
The first one of these, sodium fluoride, was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It's the most well known, as this is the compound used as pharmaceutical grade in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride. The other two, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation, with hydrofluorosilicic acid being the most commonly used additive, according to the CDC.xvi Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the wet scrubbering systems of the fertilizer industry, and are classified as hazardous wastes. Contamination with various impurities such as arsenic is also common in these products.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemicals known to man. Its toxicity is well known in chemical circles. It will eat through metal and plastic pipes, and corrode stainless steel and other materials. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concretexvii.
http://articles.merc...20521_DNL_art_1 And in the comment sections, someone said that this flouride comes from China and is filled with arsenic and lead. Which is pretty likely true.
--------------------
Another example of foreign corporations grabbing up land (and water) for huge monocropping operations in Africa. http://www.alternet....iVgtKO&rd=1&t=5
This article about Fracking spells out some of the things the industry is doing to our farmland and water. See, in addition to the vast amounts of fresh drinking water they take out of our supply to frack a well and the possible pollution of the water table, lakes, rivers or streams if the well or waste storage leaks, they also strip mine frac sand ruining small towns, farm and pasture.
And the best sand comes from Wisconsin. It's all over Wisconsin, while not being that plentiful elsewhere, because of glaciers I suppose. And this is very valuable farm and pasture land.
http://www.nationofchange.org/how-rural-america-got-fracked-1337605232
Something of particular interest to we acne sufferers:
In this article about several things wrong with our food, there's a couple of details I hadn't heard before. That milk from cows given rGBH has higher levels of IGF1 (the cow's levels increase 20x) and that rGBH is a genetically modified synthetic hormone created by who else? Monsanto.