Monsanto Is “Feeding the World” with GMO and Toxic Chemicals

In the video below, Funny or Die pokes fun at Monsanto’s “feeding the world” message by highlighting some of the most obvious features of genetically engineered (GE) foods, such as the unnatural crossing of genetic material between plant and animal kingdoms, the use of toxic chemicals and Monsanto’s ever-expanding monopoly.

Image result for GMO and Toxic Chemicals: Monsanto

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Source: Dr. Mercola


“I own everything!” Mama Monsanto exclaims, and that’s pretty close to the truth. Monsanto has gobbled up seed companies, chemical competitors and even research institutions investigating the impact of pesticides on bee die-offs.

Not to mention the influence the company wields over the U.S. government. It sure seems to “own” that too.

Many have pondered how Monsanto managed to rise to such a powerful position with respect to its influence over the U.S. government, and I think journalist Abby Martin may have pin-pointed the source of this obnoxious loyalty in her recent video report, “America’s Monster” (below).

In it, she details Monsanto’s history as an American “war horse,” which began with its involvement in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the atomic bomb. Monsanto’s contributions to the U.S. war machine continued during the Vietnam War, when the company became a leading producer of Agent Orange.

These war contributions appear to have cemented a long-lasting and loyal relationship between the U.S. government and Monsanto that continues to this day, to the detriment of the American people.

Sixty-four other nations have been labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for years. Here in the U.S., Monsanto’s influence runs so deep, we just became the first country in the world to UNLABEL GMOs, as President Obama will soon sign a bill that nullifies Vermont’s GMO labeling law, which just went into effect July 1.

Throughout its entire history, which began with the foundation of Monsanto Chemical Works in 1901, Monsanto has specialized in the production of toxic chemicals. Despite attempts to shed its destructive image, Monsanto has utterly failed to do so, for the simple fact that it never actually changed its basic modus operandi.

Nor did it actually change its direction from purveyor of toxins to a life-giving agricultural company. Its focus remains producing and selling toxins. It simply discovered it could sell more chemicals, and ensure ever-increasing profits, by producing GE seeds with herbicide-resistant properties.

Voluntary ‘Smart Label’ Preempts State and Consumer Rights

Earlier this month, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow announced they’d reached a deal1 to create a national labeling standard for GMOs using voluntary “Smart Labels” (so-called QR codes2) rather than clear labeling.

This despite the fact that polls show 88 percent of Americans have said they do NOT want to be forced into using a smartphone app to find this important information.

The bill, S. 2609, which amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 with a national bioengineered food disclosure standard,3,4 is now more or less a done deal. On July 14, the U.S. House passed the bill, 306 to 117, and President Obama has already indicated he will sign it.5

The legislation will supersede and nullify Vermont’s GMO labeling requirement, which took effect mere weeks ago.

It will also bar any other state from enacting GMO labeling requirements that differ from the national standard, and delays the disclosure requirement another two years; three years for smaller food companies.

What’s worse, the new legislation changes and significantly narrows the definition of bioengineering, as applied under this law only, such that the newest biotech methods are exempt from the disclosure standards.

As a result, most GE food products currently on the market will end up being excluded anyway.

With the passing of this bill, the U.S. “war horse” Monsanto won again. Your elected representatives sold you out to the highest bidder. Senator Jeff Merkley has even stated that the bill was “written by and for Monsanto.” As reported by Sputnik International:6

Markley explained that because of loopholes in the legislation, Monsanto-made products ‘would not be covered by it, because the definition excludes them.’

Monsanto Benefits From Farm and Biofuel Subsidies

I recently discussed how government-subsidized commodities such as corn, soy and wheat contribute to the obesity and disease epidemics in the U.S.7,8,9 The Western processed food diet is chockfull of refined added sugars and unhealthy vegetable oils, which are cheap as a result of farm subsidies.

However, as much as 65 percent of the 94.1 million acres of corn grown in the U.S. actually doesn’t enter the food system at all.10 It’s used to produce ethanol fuel.

Image result for GMO and Toxic Chemicals: Monsanto

In a 2009 speech, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said that “energy reform is a strategic imperative,”11 calling for the deployment of “the Great Green Fleet … composed of nuclear ships, surface combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running biofuel and aircraft flying only [on] biofuels.”

Mabus had put down 2016 as the deadline for this naval energy reform, but it didn’t come to pass. As noted by Vice News:12

[C]ongressional Republicans … have blocked the Navy from spending more on a gallon of biofuel than it does on a gallon of regular diesel.

Since it costs more to turn seeds, weeds or beef trimmings into usable fuel than it does to extract fossil fuels from the ground and refine them, it’s all but impossible for the fleet to use substantial amounts of biofuels with crude oil prices are as low as they currently are.

Part of the problem is the low production of biofuel, which drives up the price. According to a 2015 report13 by the World Resources Institute (WRI), in order to meet just 20 percent of the global energy demand by 2050, using plant-based biofuels, we would have to DOUBLE the global annual harvest of plant material “in all its forms.”

This makes the “quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale … both unrealistic and unsustainable,” according to the report. Despite such bleak prognoses, the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 201614 would provide a $1.00 subsidy for each gallon of biodiesel produced during the taxable year.

In short, not only are your tax dollars continuing the expansion of corn for the production of biofuel, which is “unrealistic and unsustainable” to begin with, government subsidies are also used to grow crops that are primary contributors to obesity and ill health — and both of these schemes end up benefiting Monsanto, since the vast majority of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.

‘The Dumbest Guys in the Room’

In an article titled, “GMO Industry: The Dumbest Guys in the Room,”15 columnist Kurt Cobb16 makes a number of strikingly accurate observations.

I am now convinced the GMO industry has managed to hire the worst public relations strategists in human history. By supporting a deeply flawed GMO labeling bill in the U.S. Congress … the industry is about to open a Pandora’s Box of PR nightmares for years to come,” e writes.

“The anti-GMO groups will likely put out lists of the worst labeling violators and lists of their products containing GMOs. And, of course, there will be lists based on those enigmatic QR codes. Perhaps those codes will become the equivalent of the skull and crossbones feared by one GMO executive.17

Cobb likely predicts the future here, as I believe the QR code will become exactly that — the mark of products and brands that are trying to make a mint from deception by making it as difficult as possible for you to find out the truth about their ingredients. The QR code will become known as the Mark of Monsanto, and shoppers will be able to simply assume admission of guilt when they see it, without ever taking the time to rummage through entire websites filled with extraneous information and advertising.

Forbes contributor Nancy Fink Huehnergarth has made similar observations,18 noting that “Big Food may be shooting itself in the foot again,” as the QR code will make it appear they have something to hide.

“Food/drink packaging already has an ingredient label and nutrition facts panel. How simple would it be to mandate that all food packaging add a few words or a universal symbol to communicate the inclusion of GMO ingredients?” she says.

Why Eat GMOs When They Have No Health Advantages?

Cobb makes another great point when he says:

[T]he industry’s business and public relations strategists are the same ones who made a colossal marketing error — while believing they had achieved a regulatory coup — when they steamrolled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into ruling that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GMO counterparts and therefore require no testing …

The reason this strategy has turned out to be a colossal marketing error is that as the attacks on GMOs have mounted … the industry finds itself unable to pivot and point to any advantages that GMO foods have for consumers over non-GMO foods …

After all, GMO foods are said to be ‘substantially equivalent.’ That means that the industry cannot give consumers any reasons to prefer GMO foods over their non-GMO counterparts … So far genetic engineering has focused on creating plants [that] produce insecticides internally — not a pleasant thought for those eating them — and which are immune to herbicides made by, you guessed it, the companies producing the GMO seeds.

Chemical Residues — A Major Reason to Avoid GMOs

Indeed, if GMOs are substantially equivalent to conventional crops in terms of nutritional value yet contain higher amounts of pesticides, why eat them? After all, the idea that pesticides are a boon to health is a tough sell.

As you may have noticed, with the exception of DDT, which was marketed as “good for you,” pesticides do not have health claims. And arguments defending the presence of pesticides on food always focus on the notion that the amount present is low enough that it will not produce adverse effects.

However, health statistics tell a different story, and the reason why the “trace defense” doesn’t hold water is because it’s not just about minor traces of chemicals on certain foods items.

Image result for GMO and Toxic Chemicals: Monsanto

Unless you eat organic foods and use “organic everything,” you’re exposed to pesticides from most foods, plus the chemicals used in the processing, plus chemicals to add flavor, texture and preservation power, plus chemicals found in the packaging and in the cashier’s receipt, plus the chemicals found in just about every product you put on your body every day, including the clothes you wear, and the furniture you sit on. There are even chemicals in the air you breathe and the water you drink.

We are barraged with toxins at every turn, and they all ADD UP. That is the problem. And, unfortunately, food appears to be a major source, so avoiding chemicals in your diet can go a long way toward preserving your health. With that in mind, herbicide-resistant and pesticide-producing food crops are an incredibly foolish idea that contributes absolutely nothing to the health and wellbeing of the global community.

US Right to Know Blows Lid Off Another Monsanto Scheme to Tarnish Organics

Since transparent GMO labeling is not going to happen in the U.S. anytime soon, your options become quite straight forward: Buy organic and/or locally-grown food you can verify being non-GMO. This has always been the best option; just not the least expensive or most convenient. Not surprisingly, in addition to defending the quality and safety of its GE products, Monsanto has also tried to cast doubt on organic ethics and value, in order to curb consumer preference for organics.

Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) reveal Monsanto colluded with an organization of “independent” academics to mislead the public into thinking they were being duped by the organic industry. The Huffington Post recently ran an article19 revealing this story. It’s well worth reading in its entirety.

USRTK is a nonprofit organization that pursues truth and transparency in the U.S. food system. In 2014, Academics Review, a nonprofit organization composed of “independent academic experts in agriculture and food sciences” issued a 30-page report claiming organic shoppers were over-paying for organics due to deceptive industry marketing practices.

Image result for GMO and Toxic Chemicals: Monsanto

The report, which was “endorsed by an international panel of independent agricultural science, food science, economic and legal experts from respected international institutions” gained traction in the trade press with headlines such as “Organics Exposed!” and “Organic Industry Booming by Deceiving Customers.”

The press release announcing the report even hammers home the point of independence by stating that “Academics Review has no conflicts-of-interest associated with this publication, and all associated costs … were paid for using our general funds without any specific donor influence or direction.” Alas, emails obtained by USRTK tell a different story.

Academics Review — Just Another False Front Group for Monsanto

Monsanto not only helped raise funds for Academics Review, Monsanto executives also “collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding,” The Huffington Post writes, adding:

Monsanto’s motives in attacking the organic industry are obvious: Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals are banned from use in organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto’s messaging is that its products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food production.

One of the co-founders of Academics Review was Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois. In March of this year, an investigation by Chicago WBEZ news20 discovered Monsanto paid the now retired Chassy more than $57,000 over two years for travel, writing and speaking expenses, yet Chassy never disclosed his financial ties to the company on state and university conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.

Between 2005 and 2015, Monsanto gave at least $5.1 million to University of Illinois employees and programs — all of it undisclosed, as it was funneled via the University of Illinois Foundation, which is exempt from public scrutiny and disclosure.21

Chassy also lobbied federal officials on Monsanto’s behalf to prevent further regulations on GMOs. Chassy claims he did this of his own volition, but emails22 show Monsanto’s Eric Sachs urged Chassy to get involved. The correspondence also reveals this was in fact part of an industry lobbying effort, “with academics out in front,” basically pretending to be acting independently — just like the Academics Review.

FOIA-recovered emails show Chassy was very eager to attack the organic industry but needed money. Jay Byrne, former head of communications at Monsanto, agreed to help, indicating he would discuss “options for taking the Academic Review project … forward” by meeting with Val Giddings, former vice president of the biotech industry trade association BIO.

Eric Sachs, who handles Monsanto’s public relations, also emailed Chassy discussing funding possibilities for Academics Review while “keeping Monsanto in the background.” Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are often tightly reined in by corporate bias, which prevents the truth to become as widely known as it should.

As noted in The Huffington Post:

Despite the revelations in emails and the disclosure of Chassy’s financial ties to Monsanto, the Academics Review website and its report attacking the organic industry are still posted online with all the descriptions claiming independence. And Chassy still enjoys press coverage as an ‘independent’ expert on GMOs. In May 2016, two separate Associated Press stories quoted Chassy on that topic. Neither story mentioned Chassy’s now-public financial ties to Monsanto.

Image result for GMO and Toxic Chemicals: Monsanto

Advertisements

CONFIRMED: Chemtrail and Geoengineering Programs Confirmed in Testimony at UN

The grand experiment to alter weather for the benefit of the agricultural industry and the military industrial complex can be ignored no longer. After watching the following video, any sane person will have proof that chemtrails not only exist, but that they are being used to manipulate weather, and for motivations likely of which the general public is not told.

By Anthony Von Dari@VOP Today – Source: 


Rosalind Peterson, President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition addresses the United Nations about geoengineering, chemtrails and weather modification. As a people, we have been used as testing agents while being lied to – told that we were simply being doused with water vapor while hundreds of thousands of people have suffered from a plethora of health issues ranging from neurological failure to reproductive issues and hormonal imbalances, along with many more.

THIS is undeniable evidence that chemtrails are covering our skies every day, and these chemtrails are NOT water vapor, otherwise known as contrails.They are full of pharmaceuticals, barium, nano-aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, and more.

Peterson says that the skies we are seeing everyday are “not normal cloud cover – these are man made.” She also describes more than 50 different chemtrail programs operating across the United States carried out by private companies and government agencies.

Her main complaint to the UN is that these programs affect agriculture, without any public oversight, stating that “you are going to start reducing crop production because of the impairment of the process of photosynthesis,” but the implications of her statements reach much further than just how one industry is affected by chemtrail spraying.

Those who have researched chemtrail or weather modification programs available through public record can see what we are told these programs are used for – from creating drought, to ‘protecting’ the planet from climate change, but there are deeper lies associated with chemtrail spraying available for those to unearth who are willing to dig deeper.

Chemtrails are likely causing Parkinsons’ disease, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, headaches, respiratory ailments, reproductive failure, liver failure, and a host of other diseases.

Since we have an openly admitted agenda by the UN to limit the growth of our population, what else are they doing besides affecting climate change with chemtrails?

The same as usual – increasing morbidity for what the elite call the ‘useless eaters’ of the planet.

Watch and learn. Then pass on what you know. The awakening may not be televised, but its happening before your eyes.


53 Real Reasons We Cannot Support Monsanto and GMOs

Would you ever support Monsanto’s GMOs?

A man named Brett Wilcox and his son have taken to country roads, running over 3000 miles, 20 miles at a time, in order to bring attention to the GMO monopoly that has taken over our country.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Source: Natural Society


They started from Huntington Beach, California on January 18, 2014, and arriving in Ocean City, New Jersey on July 19, 2014. The race has helped generate awareness over GMOs, and it also led to Wilcox bringing up a great point — could Monsanto ever ‘get their act together’ enough to convince the public to eat their GMOs?

According to Wilcox, there are around 53 reasons we simply cannot support GMOs that would need to individually be met before we could even consider doing so:

53 Reasons We Cannot Support Monsanto & GMOs

1. I’d need to believe that pesticide companies have a right to contaminate our biological & cultural heritage with GMOs. Petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides are absolutely raping US farmlands. Corporate farming just doesn’t work.

2. I’d need to believe that as government and industry leaders have concluded, U.S. consumers are too stupid to understand GMO food labels. We’re smarter than they think. And getting angrier all the time.

3. I’d need to agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that organic & conventional farmers have no legal recourse or protection from genetic contamination. Since when did we decide to give corporations more rights than people?

4. I’d need to believe that GMOs really are needed to feed a hungry world. Many countries have already proven that you don’t need GMOs to feed the world. Small-scale, organic farms are the way to go.

5. I’d need to believe that GMOs really are substantially equivalent to their natural counterparts. Which means, of course, I’d need to believe they no more merit patent protection than their natural counterparts.

6. I’d need to believe that GMOs should be pushed & promoted onto world markets before long term environmental, animal & human feeding studies have been conducted. In other words, I’dneed to believe that the Precautionary Principle is poppycock. If you want to know more about this concept, Nassim Nicholas Talib does a great job of explaining it and also why he calls the EU chief scientist a ‘dangerous imbecile’ for telling us we should all ignore the Precautionary Principle.

7. I’d need to believe that super weeds and superbugs are beneficial byproducts of GMO-based agriculture.

8. I’d need to believe that horizontal gene transfer is no different than traditional crossbreeding & hybridization processes. Farmers and gardeners have NOT been cross-breeding seeds like this for thousands of years, as they will claim within many a comment-section on anti-GMO articles. You can learn more about the difference between cross-breeding and GMO hybridization, here.

9. I’d need to believe that small-scale agro ecological family farms and their communities are best relegated to the history books.

10. I’d need to believe that Roundup is safe. Or if not safe, I’d need to believe that drinking and breathing Roundup, and feeding Roundup-contaminated breast milk to babies is more beneficial than not doing so. The stuff is 125 times more toxic than regulators admit. Enough said.

11. I’d need to believe that agrichemical poisons cease to be poisonous when we eat them. This one is one of the reasons I love Wilcox. In what world do the things we eat not affect us? From MSG to high fructose corn syrup, leafy greens to Vitamin C, everything has an effect on our biochemistry. Agrichemicals are no different.

12. I’d need to believe that good science includes bullying, shaming, belittling, intimidating, and silencing scientists and others who oppose GMOs.

13. I’d need to believe that good GMO related science includes sham research methods that produce sham research results.

14. I’d need to believe that pesticide companies have the right to control the editorial boards of scientific journals.

15. I’d need to believe that industry-influenced scientific journals have the right

16. I’d need to believe that killing super weeds and superbugs with ever more toxic chemicals makes moral, environmental, and fiscal sense.

17. I’d need to believe that GMOs really do have identifiable consumer benefits.

18. I’d need to believe that GMOs have never and will never contaminate their natural counterparts.

19. I’d need to believe that genetic contamination of native and natural plant and animal varieties benefits farmers, the environment, and human health.

20. I’d need to believe that chemical giants have no moral, ethical, or legal liability to the farmers’ whose crops and livelihoods are destroyed by GMO contamination.

21. I’d need to believe that turning plants into EPA-registered pesticide-producing factories provides lasting benefits to farmers, consumers, animals, and the environment.

22. I’d need to believe that privatizing seed through patents is ethical, responsible, and in the best interest of farmers, consumers, and the environment.

23. I’d need to believe that farmers have no right or business saving and replanting seeds.

24. I’d need to believe that Roundup resistant GMO crops really are safe for the environment, animals, and human health.

25. I’d need to believe that plant and animal biodiversity is of little value or importance.

26. I’d need to believe that agricultural imperialism that results from GMO patents benefits poor servant farmers more than it benefits chemical company masters.

27. I’d need to believe that turning GMO corn into ethanol is ethical and provides sound fiscal and environmental policy.

28. I’d need to believe that farmers should continue to grow GMOs in spite of the overwhelming consumer rejection of GMOs.

29. I’d need to believe that it makes sense for the government to burden organic farmers with fees, rules, and bureaucratic nonsense while subsidizing GMO farmers and the chemical companies that own the GMOs with U.S. taxpayer dollars for products that U.S. taxpayers neither need nor want.

30. I’d need to believe that pollinators are dispensable members of the web of life.

31. I’d need to believe that monocultures benefit the environment and reduce global warming.

32. I’d need to believe that doing business with and/or purchasing products containing GMOs is morally defensible.

33. I’d need to believe that Monsanto and the other chemical giants’ place the public good over their bottom line.

34. I’d need to believe that industry executives and scientists are wiser than Mother Nature and/or God.

35. I’d need to believe that the Earth’s seven billion inhabitants should trust Monsanto and gang.

36. I’d need to believe that agrochemical companies have the right to control political figures and processes through bribes, donations, and lawsuits.

37. I’d need to believe that regulation of the GMO industry is best performed directly by the GMO industry or only slightly less directly through the industry/government revolving door.

38. I’d need to believe that chemical companies have the right to control the GMO story spun by the mainstream media.

39. I’d need to believe that agrochemical companies have the right to fashion international trade agreements such as the TPP and TAFTA, agreements that are favorable to the GMO industry, agreements that supersede member nations’ rights to govern the industry.

40. I’d need to believe that parents who choose to feed their kids organic, non-GMO foodsare fear-based and irrational, and it’s good that the mainstream media exposes them to public ridicule, name calling, and shame.

41. I’d need to believe that pesticide industry executives routinely feed GMOs and associated poisons to their own children.I’d need to believe that a proper function of the U.S. State department includes the promotion of GMOs around the world.

42. I’d need to believe that the U.S. government and the World Bank have the right to provide aid to developing countries only when those countries agree to accept and promote GMOs.

43. I’d need to believe that labeling GMOs must be avoided at all costs, even if that means subverting the American democratic process as the industry has done in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, and indeed the entire nation. Why? Because GMOs are a skull and crossbones to the GMO industry. And if the market shrinks and dies, then millions of people will also die because GMOs are necessary to feed a growing world.

44. I’d need to believe that it’s good that Monsanto—the same company that produced andprofited from PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange—has seized control of much of our food supply.

45. I’d need to believe that agrochemical companies and/or farmers have no moral or legal obligation to disclose what, when, and where they spray Roundup and other toxins.

46.  I’d need to believe that agrochemical companies and/or farmers have no moral or legal obligation to disclose where their GMO crops are planted.

47. I’d need to believe that the animals that refuse to eat GMOs don’t know what’s good for them.

48. I’d need to believe that killing the soil with repeated applications of Roundup and other poisons is the foundation of sound modern agricultural practices.

49. I’d need to believe that agrochemical companies have the right to enter public schools to indoctrinate our children regarding GMOs.

50. I’d need to believe the U.S. government has the right to destabilize foreign countries such as Ukraine in order to expand the U.S. corporate empire including the Biotechnology Industry with its patented, chemically dependent, genetically modified seeds.

51. I’d need to believe that the U.S. government has the right to use war and foreign occupation to force foreign farmers to use GMOs as it did in Iraq through Paul Bremer’s infamous Order 81.

52. I’d need to believe that we’re better off without the birds, fish, and other animals impacted by GMO-based agriculture.

53. I’d need to believe we can’t live without GMO.

Brett Wilcox has also written a book exposing many of Monsanto’s lies, but his 53 requirements for (never) supporting GMOs are rock solid enough for me.

Boom: New BLACK Chemtrails Reported Worldwide!

Word of chemtrails has been pacing the internet for years, but if you were a person saying that they are fake, there will be no denying this. Black chemtrails are all over the skies, it is a new phenomenon with reports increasing world wide. You will not believe your eyes!

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today


In the video below you will see other chemtrails not making a shadow directly beside one that is making a shadow, so the theories about shadows cannot be correct.

The fact is, clouds cast shadows on the ground, not the sky, therefore, we do not see chemtrail shadows on the ground and we do not see cloud shadows in the sky.

Boom New BLACK Chemtrails Reported Worldwide.!

They spray a line of black and then go directly over the line and spray with white, making a shadow effect! It is absolutely crazy!

What are they spraying on us, and why has it become black instead of white?

Please do not say that it is a passenger jet because it is much too big to be a normal passenger jet.

Please watch the following video below, and you will not believe what you are seeing.

Loading… ‘The End of Monsanto’ Is Near

An increasing number of countries are banning Monsanto’s cancer-linked Roundup herbicide, a.k.a. glyphosate. Others are banning Monsanto’s GMOs. Meanwhile, Monsanto-funded U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thinks “(t)here is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.”

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today

Actually the facts are established: Monsanto’s herbicides and GMOs are harmful to humans and animals. Several studies have demonstrated it and even led the World Health Organization to issue a warning against glyphosate’s links to cancer.

Julie Lévesque – In fact, Monsanto knew 35 years ago that its glyphosate was linked to cancer and other health issues. GM-Free Cymru discovered this while looking into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) archives from the early 80′s:

There were many animal experiments (using rats, mice and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration… but like all the other older studies they were and still are treated as Trade Secrets and cannot be freely accessed for independent scrutiny. That in itself is suggestive that the studies contain data which Monsanto still does not wish to be examined by experts in the toxicology field. It is also deeply worrying that EPA acceded to the routine Monsanto requests for secrecy on the flimsiest of pretexts.”

However, archived and accessible EPA Memos from the early 1980′s do give some indications as to what the rat studies contain (9). Although the studies predate the adoption of international test guidelines and GLP standards they suggest that there was significant damage to the kidneys of the rats in the 3-generational study… In the rat study results, the changes in the bladder mucosa are significant because metabolites, concentrated by the kidneys, have led to hyperplasia that could be considered as a very early and necessary step in tumour initiation. (GM-Free Cymru, Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate / Cancer Link 35 Years Ago, April 19, 2015)”

Genetically modified foods are also linked to health issues including gluten disorders:

The Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) Jeffrey M. Smith has discovered a link between gluten disorders and GM foods in a study he conducted last year. Gluten disorders have sharply risen over the past 2 decades, which correlates with GM foods being introduced into the food supply. Smith asserts that GM foods – including soy and corn – are the possible “environmental triggers” that have contributed to the rapid increase of gluten disorders that effect close to 20 million American’s today. (Steven MacMillan, Monsanto’s GMO Food and its Dark Connections to the “Military Industrial Complex”, The Analyst Report, July 03, 2014)”

Ironically, Hillary praises GMOs but during their stay at the White house, the Clintons, just like the Obamas, were fed organic food:

The Clinton and Bush II families ate organic foods. Walter Scheib was White House executive chef from 1994 – 2005.”

He had “the professional challenge of fulfilling Hillary Clinton’s mandate of bringing contemporary American cuisine and nutritionally responsible food to the White House,” he said.

Nearly all foods used were gotten from local growers and suppliers. A small White House roof garden was used for produce grown without pesticides and fertilizers. Organic foods were prioritized.”

First families continue getting wholesome pesticide/GMO-free foods while promoting frankenfoods hazardous to human health for Monsanto and other biotech giants. (Stephen Lendman, Hillary Clinton Endorses GMOs. White House Meals are Organic, Global Research, May 25, 2015)”

As Mike Adams reports, Hillary Clinton has  hired former Monsanto lobbyist to run her campaign and her law firm used to have Monsanto as a client. It is no surprise that she strongly advocates GMOs.

If GMOs are as good as Hillary pretends they are, however, why are the first families not eating any and why are so many countries banning them?

The reasons for the bans recall the allegedly fraudulent 2012 Seralini study:

In response to a 2004 study declaring Monsanto’s NK603 GMO maize safe:

…a predominantly French team led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini undertook a two-year (over 700 days), feeding trial [2], which was otherwise similar. Their work was published in September 2012, also inFCT. The early warnings that had been dismissed in the Monsanto paper developed into serious illnesses, including damage to liver, kidneys, pituitary gland and, most notably, early deaths and development of large tumours in females. In addition, the study included trials of minute amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup, the herbicide to which tolerance has been genetically engineered into NK603, in the rats’ drinking water.” (Christina Sarich Former Monsanto Employee Fired from Major Scientific Journal’s Editor Position, Natural Society, March 30, 2015)”

The study was labeled fraudulent soon after its publication and was retracted from the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Shortly before the study was retracted, ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman had been appointed Associate Editor. He has since been removed from the Editorial Board of the scientific journal along with Editor-in-Chief, A. Wallace Hayes:

After the Seralini study was retracted, hundreds of scientists contacted the journal to ask them why they were doing so, claiming that they were giving in to pressure from the biotech industry. (Ibid.)”

The WHO’s recent warning seems to have triggered a domino effect, inciting countries to ban Monsanto products and which could lead to its demise.

Here is a list of bans which are either in effect or on their way all around the world, as well as studies showing the damages caused by Monsanto’s products:

Glyphosate ban

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s Newly Elected President Bans Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) – Deadly Chronic Kidney Disease Increased 5-Fold

Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Maithripala Sirisena, has announced that the import of Monsanto’s favorite killing-tool, glyphosate, will no longer be allowed in the country.

Sirisena is a farmer and ex health minister, and blames glyphosate for rising rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) throughout the Sri Lankan farming community.

The Netherlands

Netherlands Bans Monsanto’s Roundup to Protect Citizens from Carcinogenic Glyphosate

Late last year, the Dutch parliament voted to ban the sale of glyphosate-based herbicides to private parties. The ban, under which agricultural use is excluded, was initially proposed several years ago. However, it is thought that Monsanto influence prevented it from taking place at the time.

Brazil

Brazil’s Public Prosecutor Wants to Ban Monsanto’s Chemicals Following Recent Glyphosate-Cancer Link

While some agencies in Brazil have been busy giving 3 new GMO crops green lights, the country’s public prosecutor has written the Brazil’s National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) asking it to urgently re-evaluate their stance on the ‘likely carcinogenic’ herbicide ingredient, glyphosate. The letter was written with an expectation that the agency will ban the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide.

Germany (European Union)

German Ministers Call for EU-Wide Ban on Monsanto’s Deadly Glyphosate Herbicide (Roundup)

State consumer protection ministers in Germany are advocating an EU-wide ban on glyphosate herbicides in response to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) categorization of the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”

Argentina

30,000 Doctors in Argentina Demand that Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) Be Banned

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina’s Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization’s recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are “likely carcinogenic,” they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:

  • Spontaneous abortions

  • Birth defects

  • Skin disease

  • Respiratory illness

  • Neurological disease

Bermuda

Bermuda Suspends Glyphosate-Ridden Monsanto Roundup Indefinitely

Following a recent study on Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup and its main chemical ingredient glyphosate, Bermuda has decided to suspend any importation of glyphosate/Roundup until further research give reason to lift the suspension.

GMOs ban

France

French Parliament Moves Beyond Monsanto, Bans GMO Corn

France’s lower house of Parliament banned GM corn in a sweeping fashion, Reuters reported. Now, no variety of GM corn can be cultivated because of its toxic threats to the soil, insects and human health.

U.S.

The Maui GMO Ban and the Monsanto-Dow Criminal Human Experimentation

In the last election, the voters of Maui, in a ballot measure, decided to place a temporary ban on further Dow/Monsanto GMO/pesticide experiments in Maui County.

Immediately, Monsanto, Dow, and yes, even the County government of Maui (betraying their own voters), lined up against the results of the vote.

Hungary

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned.

Peru

Peru Passes Monumental Ten-Year Ban on Genetically Modified Foods

In an act of defiance against bloated biotech companies like Monsanto, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients within the nation for a period of 10 years…

While the ban will stop the flow of GM foods within the nation’s borders, a recent test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants.

Russia

Why Is Russia Banning GMOs While the US Keeps Approving Them?

The VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, Irina Ermakova, has said:

It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years… It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals.”

China

Geopolitics of Organic Food: Russia, China and France Ban GMOs

Russia’s stance against GMO is mirrored elsewhere, including in France where just recently Monsanto’s GM corn was banned and in China where the importing of US GM corn has been outlawed. The backlash against GMO has widespread appeal due to well-placed health and environmental concerns among increasingly informed populations. But the drive to push back against GMO in nations like Russia and China also has a geopolitical dimension.

List Of Countries Worldwide Banned GM Crops

Following the recent green wave of genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation bans across the European Union, Sustainable Pulse decided to research which countries have decided to officially ban the cultivation of GM crops around the Globe.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Source: Sustainable Pulse

This research has led to the discovery that there is a growing swell of government level support worldwide for bans on GM crop cultivation for both health and environmental reasons.

Thirty nine (39) countries worldwide have officially banned the cultivation of GM crops and only 28 actually grow GM crops (most of which grow under 500 thousand hectares). The picture painted by the Biotech industry and the U.S. government that GM crops have been accepted by the majority of countries worldwide is therefore quite obviously wrong.

In fact many countries have recently started to put in place regulations to protect their population and environment from the environmental and health damage caused by GM crops.

GM Crops

Sustainable Pulse welcomes additions or edits to the list below from readers / experts from around the Globe – Please contact info@sustainablepulse.com .

Official GM crop cultivation bans:

Africa (2)

The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:

Algeria (since 2000)

Madagascar (since 2002)

Asia (6)

Turkey,

Kyrgyzstan

Bhutan

Saudi Arabia

Russia

Americas (4)

Belize

Peru

Ecuador

Venezuela

Europe (28)

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Germany

France

The Netherlands

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Bulgaria

Russia

Serbia

Croatia

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

Moldova

Latvia

Lithuania

Austria

Poland

Slovenia

Azerbaijan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Luxembourg

Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)

Norway

Switzerland