Acne.org Products
Did you catch the NPR segment on 'chicken litter' being fed to cattle as a cheap source of feed?
The litter includes their droppings and spilled food. And their food includes beef products. http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154504565/assessing-consumer-concerns-about-the-meat-industry
So, the senate is debating the new farm bill now. Here's a site for information on it. The link below goes straight to a post about various amendments you might want to contact your senator in support or opposition.
Why Are Twinkies Cheaper Than Carrots?
If you want to eat healthfully, you have to fight an uphill battle. Why are government subsidies pushing in the wrong direction?
Government Policy Consistently Favors Big Agribusiness
As I describe in my new book No Happy Cows, agrichemical companies, factory farms and junk food manufacturers are quite happy with things the way they are. Thanks to their lobbying clout, government policies consistently favor the financial interests of these special interests over public health, even though the result is trillions of dollars in additional health care expenses.
Here's an example: In just the last two years, 24 states have considered legislation that would place a tax on soft drinks. These "soda taxes" would discourage consumption of drinks high in sugar, thus reducing obesity and health care costs. And they would also raise money that could be used to subsidize healthier foods. But in every single state, the legislation has been defeated. PepsiCo Inc., the Coca-Cola Company, and the American Beverage Association have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to determine the outcome.
"In the political arena, one side is winning the war on child obesity," a new Reuters report on the food lobby begins. "The side with the fattest wallets.".
Full article: http://www.alternet.org/food/155695/why_are_twinkies_cheaper_than_carrots
The EU blocking France's ban on GMO crops and other corporate-influenced government evil:
So, Monsantos next 'logical' move is to get factory fish farms to buy GM soy feed.
And check out this article. Apparently genetic modification of several babies took place early last decade:
Another Mercola article about the evil of Monsanto. Contains a chart showing the overlap between Monsanto people and people in our government. And quite a lot about the effects of lobbyists on our government.
http://articles.merc...31_DNL_artNew_1
And another one about the Bill Gates and his foundation and all the funds they give to genetic engineering and other harmful industries:
Another article on GM, Monsanto and the like. This one cites various evidence on how the GM seeds are not increasing crop yields.
http://articles.merc...28_DNL_artNew_1
GE Crops have Failed to Live Up to Promises
As pointed out by Senator Sanders, GE crops have failed to live up to promisesthey do not provide greater yields, and they're certainly not better for the environment. According towith the Organic Consumers Association, use of broad-spectrum herbicides is estimated totripleas herbicide-resistant crops continue to be planted around the globe. As for the promise that GE crops will help feed a starving world by producing higher yields, consider the results published in the following reports:
Study on the badness of the WGA lectin in wheat. It's usually lectins that they are swapping around when the engineer supposedly pest resistant crops. Because that's why the lectins are in the seeds in the first place, to deter critters from eating them. They are bad for you.
Antinutritive effects of wheat-germ agglutinin and other N-acetylglucosamine-specific lectins.
Source
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.
Abstract
Incorporation of N-acetylglucosamine-specific agglutinins from wheat germ (Triticum aestivum; WGA), thorn apple (Datura stramonium) or nettle (Urtica dioica) rhizomes in the diet at the level of 7 g/kg reduced the apparent digestibility and utilization of dietary proteins and the growth of rats, with WGA being the most damaging. As a result of their binding and endocytosis by the epithelial cells of the small intestine, all three lectins were growth factors for the gut and interfered with its metabolism and function to varying degrees. WGA was particularly effective; it induced extensive polyamine-dependent hyperplastic and hypertrophic growth of the small bowel by increasing its content of proteins, RNA and DNA. Furthermore, an appreciable portion of the endocytosed WGA was transported across the gut wall into the systemic circulation, where it was deposited in the walls of the blood and lymphatic vessels. WGA also induced the hypertrophic growth of the pancreas and caused thymus atrophy.
Although the transfer of the gene of WGA into crop plants has been advocated to increase their insect resistance, as the presence of this lectin in the diet may harm higher animals at the concentrations required to be effective against most pests, its use in plants as natural insecticide is not without health risks for man.
Any positive news on the GMO front? I know many states have been close to making legislature forcing companies to label GMO food products in stores, but i'm not sure if any have been successful. Maybe we need to be like some of the countries over seas and set our GMO crops on fire
Fun article about the bizarre origins of 6 companies/brands starting with the ultimate evil--Monsanto:
It's just a rat study, but fluoride may cause insulin resistance.
Apparently the FDA is moving closer to approving genetically modified Salmon.
http://articles.merc...30108_DNL_art_1
In addition to the devastating effects should these fish get loose into the wild, there's these changes in the substances in the meat you would be eating:
Two years ago, GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, called the potential approval of genetically engineered salmon "a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government." According to Smith, evidence5 suggests the buffed-up salmon might have higher levels of a potentially cancer promoting hormone, IGF-1, more antibiotics, and more of potentially life-threatening allergen(s).
Also, illustrates one more example on how in these studies they study something completely different from what we/the planet/whatever will be exposed to--the fish studied are not the same (grown in the same conditions) as those that will be raised for food.
Forbes and Slate magazine amongst others have investigated and question integrity of FDA for blocking release of preliminary documents until recently.
Obama's Science Commitment, FDA Face Ethics Scrutiny in Wake of GMO Salmon Fiasco
Questions are emerging about the breakdown of the federal governments science integrity process in the wake of the Food & Drug Administrations long-delayed release of its approval of the first genetically modified animal for human consumption.
http://www.forbes.co...-salmon-fiasco/
The case for GM crops, such as it is, is based almost entirely on industry-funded research. This research is never peer-reviewed before it is seen by regulators who determine the safety of a GM crop for release or consumption, and who never evaluate whether a crop achieves its stated benefits. Even well after a crop is released, only a tiny fraction of these dossier studies are ever published and they cannot be replicated by independent scientists because only those with a special relationship to the developing company have access to research raw materials. There are virtually no proper toxicology or safety studies, and studies that are flagged up as safety studies are often nothing more than short-term studies designed to show nutritional equivalence. Because these studies cannot be repeated or verified, they should be rejected out of hand by the scientific community. Instead, they are accepted as valid.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/01/08/lynas-school-pseudo-scientific-environmentalism/
Honestly, the best defense we have against these people is public awareness. They are able to do all of these things so freely because most of the public isn't even aware that it is happening. And the ones supposedly regulating these practices are going in and out of the companies they are supposed to be regulating. I may be over optimistic here, but i do believe public awareness is growing. Slowly...
So there's a wikipedia page keeping track of the food borne illness outbreaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outbreaks_in_the_United_States
Also, you may have heard about Peak Oil, which many believe we've already reached and you better be making plans for things to change. But have you heard of peak phosphorous. A mineral used in artificial fertilizers without which large scale industrial farming is not possible. Some estimate we'll reach it in Peak Phosphorus in 2030. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
Interesting article from a while back discussing importance of non-GMO labeling. Basically how organic farms can still find GMO corn in the feed for their livestock
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1599110,00.html
So, apparently, during a drought, stunted plants take up excessive levels of nitrogen and other chemicals (like arsenic) in the artificial fertilizers they dump on them. And they dump a lot on corn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/usa-corn-nitrate-idUSL2E8JFA3Z20120816
So, did you know FDA regulations prohibit any reference to scientific studies by manufactures of a dietary supplement or by food producers, regarding its health benefits? In the FDA's view, even providing a link to a study on a website converts a healthy fruit or nut into an unapproved drug.
Mercola says this about it:
I've received many warning letters from the FDA for saying things that are contrary to their recommendations. I've not been accused of saying things that are untrue, or in some way deceiving or harming people I've been warned to stop saying things that are true but against the FDA's regulations. The message is, you can only say something they approve of, and whether it's truthful or not is beside the point.
However, Congressman Chaffetz and other representatives have introduced H.R. 1364, the Free Speech About Science Act (FSAS)5, a bill that would enable supplement companies to cite peer reviewed science.
This is from an article about how the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), formerly known as American Dietetic Association (ADA), is trying to use the courts to block anyone who expresses views or facts that don't conform to their beliefs. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/19/attack-against-paleo-blogger.aspx?e_cid=20130219_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130219 Such as many Paleo gurus.
Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs or chemicals.
http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/
Using an intensive technique called System of Rice [or root] Intensification (SRI). It's applicable to other crops, vegetables, not just grains. This technique also uses less water in the rice fields.
It's techniques like this and water conserving and rainwater harvesting techniques that will feed the world. Not chemicals and patented seeds.
The thing is, techniques like this are more useful to small farmers, and not so much to Big Ag.
Much of [the criticism of the technique] comes from a belief among many scientists and most western governments that the developing world must adopt western-style industrial ag techniques in order to produce enough food. But that view is a fantasy: Even today, as the Guardian article observes, 93 percent of Bihars 100 million residents are subsistence farmers.
Its delusional to expect that Bihar and the vast populations of Africa, Indonesia, and China will transform into western-style economies with western-style population distributions. Billions of people across the globe will remain subsistence farmers far into the future; what they require are farming techniques that can improve yields even modestly. Forcing regions that dont have passable roads (much less electrification) to rely on the grace of multinational organizations to supply seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals seems borderline criminal.
SRI appears to offer an acceptable alternative for a variety of crops, including rice, potatoes, wheat, corn, beans, eggplant, onions, carrots, sugar cane, and even tomatoes.
Personally, I don't think developing nations should adopt many of western ways. They should skip all our mistakes.
Here's another article on the same subject with very good commentary on the problem with 'western ways' when it comes to agriculture and the determination to spend fortunes screwing with genes. http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/Occupy,Monsanto,GMO,Genetic,Engineering,Modified,Organism,Food,Sustainable,Local,Locavore,Organic,RoundUp/system-of-root-intensification/
Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs or chemicals.
http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/
Using an intensive technique called System of Rice [or root] Intensification (SRI). It's applicable to other crops, vegetables, not just grains. This technique also uses less water in the rice fields.
It's techniques like this and water conserving and rainwater harvesting techniques that will feed the world. Not chemicals and patented seeds.
The thing is, techniques like this are more useful to small farmers, and not so much to Big Ag.
This is really inspiring to see this. Feels like the world is slowly moving in the right direction, which is away from Monsanto and GMOs
CEO of Nestle doesn't believe access to water is a human right.
^
Hah! Yeah i read about that recently and...i would say i'm shocked, except...i'm not. At all. Only a little bit.
These people never cease to amaze me with their greediness. People don't realize how truly corrupt CEOs of large companies are. They become so self absorbed, and so obsessed with money...they could give a f#ck less about humanity. It's rare to find one that doesn't operate like this
Michael Pollan has a new book out, the gist of which, as he said in a recent Stephen Colbert interview, is that the biggest factor in the health of your diet is who cooks your food, a corporation or a person you know.
Just stay away from the chemical-filled ultra-processed crap imitation food from Nabisco, General Mills, Nestle, Hershey, Kraft, pepsi, coke, hormel, tyson, conAgra, And big chain restaurants. If it's advertized on TV you probably don't want to eat it.
So, several things.
1) Doctor oz' claims that organic food was no better or not worth the cost. I paid no attention when he said this, figuring so yeah, he's a toy, as others have said here on this forum. So I had no idea just how stupid some of his statements were. But be sure to check out the Coral's video --a little girl who made a rebuttal to many of the stupid claims about elitism and cost. Apparently one of his claims was that canned beans are cheaper than cooking dried beans, which is ridiculous. And his math included paying for someone for all the hours it takes to soak then cook the beans. Which of course, no one watches beans soak. And the cost of our food doesn't involve paying ourselves to do the cooking. Google coralganics or Dr Oz gets schooled by a little girl or something like that.
2) Hungary, one of the European countries that ban GMO crops is seeking out and burning fields found to be contaminated. http://www.realfarmacy.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/#PziLCZDqO4tAXCeZ.01
3) Obama proposed changes to the Food for Peace food aid program in which instead of our Government paying top dollar to big American Ag corporations we instead spend much less money to improve the ability of farmers around to produce food locally and make a living. One the problems with the old way was that dumping all that American grain on the country impeded the locals ability to make a living as farmers. Also, big ag takes over land to grow big ag commercial crops that are often not food or don't provide for local needs like coffee, cacao, cotton. http://www.care2.com/causes/peace-begins-when-the-hungry-can-feed-themselves.html The problem with hunger has nothing to do with the amount of crops grown.
And read about the amount of arsenic you consume when you eat commercial CAFO non-organic chicken:
http://www.care2.com/causes/when-you-eat-chicken-youre-eating-arsenic.html
This is from a 2006 study of chicken parts, but it's surprising that Trader Joe's chicken contained surprisingly high amounts and Tysons' is surprisingly low.
This is important!!
So, apparently there's a new Free Trade Agreement in the works. A Pan-Pacific Partnership agreement that includes 11 countries, many of which currently ban GMO products or require labeling. These agreements tend to include agreements to prohibit any legislation in any member country that might harm big food's profits. Such as those GMO bans and labeling that might hurt poor Monsanto.
And the contents of the agreement are being kept secret. Even your congresman that will vote on it isn't allowed to read it. Not that they read the bils anyway.
http://www.nationofchange.org/trans-pacific-partnership-and-monsanto-1372074730
Notice the description of what happened to Mexican corn farmers after NAFTA. Millions of farmers went bankrupt and Mexico now imports half the corn they consume. And this is the birthplace of corn. They have been growing hundreds of varieties for thousands of years.
The free trade agreement is also a major reason Port au Prince was so overpopulated and filled with unsafe housing. Farmers couldn't compete with subsidized imports and moved to the city to look for work. These agreements do not benefit anyone except the few who benefit from big corporate profits.
On NPR this morning they reported that a larvae that eats the roots of corn has grown resistance to the BT toxin in Monsantos GM BT corn. So now farmers are dumping pesticides on the already pesticide filled corn. The EPA is 'concerned.'
Also, reported on Fox News, intestinal damage is being found in livestock fed BT corn. how did Monsanto let that news get out?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/23/press-questions-gmo-safety.aspx
Seriously! on Fox News!!!
Two congressmen that earn millions in farm subsidies (for growing bad food, because that's what we subsidize) while voting against food stamps for low income 'takers' which is part of the farm bill. Yes, it is an anti-Republican article on an anti-Republican site. It's possible there are Democrats too, but unlikely. There aren't many that would vote against aid programs like this.
The most outstanding hypocrite hitting the lowest low, of course, is Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher, who's gotten $3.5 million in subsidies over the years, but is on a pseudo-biblical crusade against SNAPa program 22 percent of the people in his home county rely on. But he has company in his "farm bill money for me but not for thee" voting record, including California's Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who's gotten $1.7 million in farm subsidies.