YOU HEARD VFB SAY FRAUD VITIATES ALL CONTRACTS📜⚖️

Bayer to appeal $2 billion verdict in Roundup cancer lawsuit

House Votes For Monsanto’s Anti-Consumer Bill; How Did Your Representative Vote?

By Tami Canal On July 15, 2016 

Roll call!
This week the House confirmed the Senate’s position that the American people’s desire for reasonable, clear and concise food labeling means nothing compared to biotech and chemical corporation blood money. A bill has been passed that eliminates GMO food labeling, instead implementing a bogus QR code alternative. Time to buy a smart phone and obtain a data plan! Too bad for the 100,000,000 Americans who do not own a cell phone or live in an area with poor cellular connectivity. And I’m sure for those with access, the QR codes will lead to unbiased, factual information since the websites will be operated by the very corrupt companies who have spent tens of millions of dollars to preempt our right to know.
The bill also obliterates Vermont’s labeling precedent that requires on-package labeling. Five words: “Made with genetically engineered ingredients” is all the American people want.
But the U.S. government could care less. The bill will now move to President Obama’s desk, where he will have the power to sign the socially unjust bill into law or to honor his 2007 campaign promise to label GMOs and veto the corrupt legislation. Please call the White House now and urge the President to stand with the 90% of Americans who want adequate labeling, a right afforded to countries like Russia, China, and 32 others.
Here is the breakdown of this week’s House vote: 

YEAS (306)Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawrence
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O’Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NAYS (117)Amash
Bass
Becerra
Beyer
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Coffman
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Culberson
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Duncan (TN)
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Gabbard
Gibson
Goodlatte
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jones
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Messer
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Pallone
Palmer
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wittman
Yarmuth
Yoder
Zeldin
Not Voting (10)Bishop (UT)
Black
Crowley
Ellison
Hastings
Marino
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Takai

Overdue Update On Our Battle Against The Scourge Of GMOs

I've been busy with life, among other things.

I'll attempt to get back to a more regular schedule of posting, but for now, visit the offered URLs:

http://www.quiet-corner.com/garden-ideas/benefits-of-organic-farming-over-conventional-farming/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html

We have one last chance to beat the DARK Act - can we do it?

Linda B. Rosenthal

July 15 at 3:58pm · 

The ‪#‎DARKAct‬ is an industry-sponsored attempt to confuse consumers and confound state-level GMO labeling efforts. Check out my letter to POTUS, signed by colleagues from 10 other states. ‪#‎Labelit‬ ‪#‎Righttoknow‬

Dear Mr. President:

We write as the prime sponsors of state legislation to require mandatory on package labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We respectfully request that should it make it to your desk for consideration, you veto Senate Bill 764, which would expressly preempt state action on GMO labeling and create a confusing federal regulatory scheme.

While federal action is often preferred to avoid creating a patchwork of state laws, the federal legislation currently under consideration would create just the patchwork that we so often seek to avoid. It would additionally place the burden of parsing incoherent regulation squarely on the shoulders of consumers. While S.B 764 would mandate labeling and expressly preempt any state action on GMO labeling, it would allow manufacturers to determine whether to affix a label on the product package or in the alternative to affix a QR code, which the consumer could scan using a smart phone.

That assumes, of course, that all Americans have access to smart phones, that all supermarkets, grocery stores, delis, bodegas and other places where packaged food is sold to consumers across the county provide reliable access to the internet and that consumers, racing through the store on the way home from an eight-hour work day before stopping to pick up the kids from daycare and getting home to cook a healthy and nutritious dinner have the luxury of time this legislation would require to stop and scan the QR code of each and every product before they toss it in their cart.

In addition, smaller manufacturers would be exempted from the labeling requirements altogether, and will instead simply be required to offer consumers an on-package phone number or URL from which to obtain additional information about GMO content.

Consumers will be easily confused by these inconsistent requirements, and it is easy to foresee situations in which a consumer could fairly but incorrectly conclude that a product is GMO-free simply because it does not contain an on-package label. Though there are currently 17 state laws pending or passed, the laws we authored are striking for their commonalities and not their differences. Allowing these state laws to proceed would create a far more standard approach to food product labeling than the federal bill under consideration.

The vast majority of Americans, in fact more than 90%, support GMO labeling because like us, they believe they have a right to know what is in the food they eat and feed to their families. Allowing S.B. 764 to become law would deny Americans information that they have deemed is critical to their purchasing decisions by creating a confusing and convoluted labeling scheme.

As state legislators who have stood firm in the face of intense opposition from the biotechnology industry and its powerful lobby to protect consumers and their families, we respectfully ask that you stand with us now and veto S.B. 764 should it come before you. Thank you.

Most Respectfully,

Linda B. Rosenthal
Member of Assembly – 67th AD

Jeffrey Dinowitz
New York State Assembly

Kenneth P. Lavalle
New York State Senate

Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature

Geran Tarr
Alaska State Legislature

Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature

Diana Urban
Connecticut State Legislature

David Koehler
Illinois State Senate

David Burns
Maine State Legislature

Michelle Dunphy
Maine State Legislature

Ellen Story
Massachusetts State Legislature

John Marty
Minnesota State Senate

Roger Singer
New Jersey State Senate

Joseph F. Vitale
New Jersey State Senate

Blake A. Filippi
Rhode Island State Legislature

Carolyn W. Partridge
Vermont State Legislature

Michael Sirotkin
Vermont State Legislature

Kathryn Webb
Vermont State Legislature

Teo Zagar
Vermont State Legislature

David Zuckerman
Vermont State Legislature

Important Paper On Glyphosate - And Discussion On The NEW Pathogen Affecting Plant, Animal And Human Fertility - Dr. Don Huber

Important Paper on Glyphosate - and discussion on the NEW pathogen effecting plant, animal and human fertility   November 12, 2012 Dr. Don Huber

AG CHEMICAL AND CROP NUTRIENT INTERACTIONS – CURRENT UPDATE   Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University   ABSTRACT: Micronutrients are regulators, inhibitors and activators of physiological processes, and plants provide a primary dietary source of these elements for animals and people. Micronutrient deficiency symptoms are often indistinct (“hidden hunger”) and commonly ascribed to other causes such as drought, extreme temperatures, soil pH, etc. The sporadic nature of distinct visual symptoms, except under severe deficiency conditions, has resulted in a reluctance of many producers to remediate micronutrient deficiency. Lost yield, reduced quality, and increased disease are the unfortunate consequences of untreated micronutrient deficiency. The shift to less tillage, herbicide resistant crops and extensive application of glyphosate has significantly changed nutrient availability and plant efficiency for a number of essential plant nutrients. Some of these changes are through direct toxicity of glyphosate while others are more indirect through changes in soil organisms important for nutrient access, availability, or plant uptake. Compensation for these effects on nutrition can maintain optimum crop production efficiency, maximize yield, improve disease resistance, increase nutritional value, and insure food and feed safety. INTRODUCTION Thirty+ years ago, U.S. agriculture started a conversion to a monochemical herbicide program focused around glyphosate (Roundup®). The near simultaneous shift from conventional tillage to no-till or minimum tillage stimulated this conversion and the introduction of genetically modified crops tolerant to glyphosate. The introduction of genetically modified (Roundup Ready®) crops has greatly increased the volume and scope of glyphosate usage, and conversion of major segments of crop production to a monochemical herbicide strategy. Interactions of glyphosate with plant nutrition and increased disease have been previously over looked, but become more obvious each year as glyphosate residual effects become more apparent. The extensive use of glyphosate, and the rapid adoption of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops such as soybean, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa; with their greatly increased application of glyphosate for simplified weed control, have intensified deficiencies of numerous essential micronutrients and some macronutrients. Additive nutrient inefficiency of the Roundup Ready® (RR) gene and glyphosate herbicide increase the need for micronutrient remediation, and established soil and tissue levels for nutrients considered sufficient for specific crop production may be inadequate indicators in a less nutrient efficient glyphosate weed management program. Understanding glyphosate’s mode of action and impact of the RR gene, indicate strategies to offset negative impacts of this monochemical system on plant nutrition and its predisposition to disease. A basic consideration in this regard should be a much more judicious use of glyphosate. Glyphosate damage is often attributed to other causes such as drought, cool soils, deep seeding, high temperatures, crop residues, water fluctuations, etc. Table X provides some of the common symptoms of drift and residual glyphosate damage to crops. This paper is an update of information on nutrient and disease interactions affected by glyphosate and the RR gene(s), and includes recently published research in the European Journal of Agronomy and other international scientific publications. UNDERSTANDING GLYPHOSATE   Glyphosate (N-(phosphomonomethyl)glycine) is a strong metal chelator and was first patented as such by Stauffer Chemical Co. in 1964 (U.S. Patent No. 3,160,632). Metal chelates are used extensively in agriculture to increase solubility or uptake of essential micronutrients that are essential for plant physiological processes. They are also used as herbicides and other biocides (nitrification inhibitors, fungicides, plant growth regulators, etc.) where they immobilize specific metal co-factors (Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn) essential for enzyme activity. In contrast to some compounds that chelate with a single or few metal species, glyphosate is a broadspectrum chelator with both macro and micronutrients (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn). It is this strong, broadspectrum chelating ability that also makes glyphosate a broad-spectrum herbicide and a potent antimicrobial agent since the function of numerous essential enzymes is affected (Ganson and Jensen, 1988). Primary emphasis in understanding glyphosate’s herbicidal activity has been on inhibition of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) at the start of the Shikimate physiological pathway for secondary metabolism. This enzyme requires reduced FMN as a co-factor (catalyst) whose reduction requires manganese (Mn). Thus, by immobilizing Mn by chelation, glyphosate denies the availability of reduced FMN for the EPSPS enzyme. It also can affect up to 25 other plant enzymes that require Mn as a co-factor and numerous other enzymes in both primary and secondary metabolism that require other metal co-factors (Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni, Zn). Several of these enzymes also function with Mn in the Shikimate pathway that is responsible for plant responses to stress and defense against pathogens (amino acids, hormones, lignin, phytoalexins, flavenoids, phenols, etc.). By inhibiting enzymes in the Shikimate pathway, a plant becomes highly susceptible to various ubiquitous soilborne pathogens (Fusarium, Pythium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, etc.). It is this pathogenic activity that actually kills the plant as “the herbicidal mode of action” (Johal and Rahe, 1984; Levesque and Rahe, 1992, Johal and Huber, 2009). If glyphosate is not translocated to the roots because of stem boring insects or other disruption of the vascular system, aerial parts of the plant may be stunted, but the plant is not killed. Recognizing that glyphosate is a strong chelator to immobilize essential plant micronutrients provides an understanding for the various non-herbicidal and herbicidal effects of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a phloem-mobile, systemic chemical in plants that accumulates in meristematic tissues (root, shoot tip, reproductive, legume nodules) and is released into the rhizosphere through root exudation (from RR as well as non-RR plants) or mineralization of treated plant residues. Degradation of glyphosate in most soils is slow or non-existent since it is not ‘biodegradable’ and is primarily by microbial co-metabolism when it does occur. Although glyphosate can be rapidly immobilized in soil (also spray tank mixtures, and plants) through chelation with various cat-ions (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn), it is not readily degraded and can accumulate for years (in both soils and perennial plants). Very limited degradation may be a “safety” feature with glyphosate since most degradation products are toxic to normal as well as RR plants. Phosphorus fertilizers can desorb accumulated glyphosate that is immobilized in soil to damage and reduce the physiological efficiency of subsequent crops. Some of the observed affects of glyphosate are presented in table 1. TABLE 1. Some things we know about glyphosate that influence plant nutrition and disease. 1. Glyphosate is a strong metal chelator (for Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mg, Ni, Zn) – in the spray tank, in soil and in plants. 2. It is rapidly absorbed by roots, stems, and leaves, and moves systemically throughout the plant (normal and RR). 3. Accumulates in meristematic tissues (root, shoot, legume nodules, and reproductive sites) of normal and RR plants. 4. Inhibits EPSPS in the Shikimate metabolic pathway and many other plant essential enzymes. 5. Increases susceptibility to drought and disease. 6. Non-specific herbicidal activity (broad-spectrum weed control). 7. Some of the applied glyphosate is exuded from roots into soil. 8. Immobilized in soil by chelating with soil cat-ions (Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Zn). 9. Persists and accumulates in soil and plants for extended periods (years) – it is not ‘biodegradable,’ but is rapidly immobilized by chelation generally. 10. Desorbed from soil particles by phosphorus and is available for root uptake by all plants. 11. Toxic to soil organisms that facilitate nutrient access, availability, or absorption of nutrients. 12. Inhibits the uptake and translocation of Fe, Mn, and Zn at very low, non-herbicidal rates. 13. Stimulates soilborne pathogenic and other soil microbes to reduce nutrient availability. 14. Reduces secondary cell wall formation and lignin in RR and non-RR plants. 15. Inhibits nitrogen fixation by chelating Ni for ureide synthesis and is toxic to Rhizoiaceae. 16. Reduces physiological availability and concentration of Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, and Zn in plant tissues and seed. 17. Residual soil activity can damage plants through root uptake. 18. Increases mycotoxins in stems, straw, grain, and fruit. 19. Reduces photosynthesis (CO2 fixation). 20. Causes fruit (bud) drop and other hormonal effects. 21. Accumulates in food and feed products to enter the food chain as an item of food safety. UNDERSTANDING THE ROUNDUP READY® GENE   Plants genetically engineered for glyphosate-tolerance contain the Roundup Ready® gene(s) that provide an alternate EPSPS pathway (EPSPS-II) that is not blocked by glyphosate. The purpose of these gene inserts is to provide herbicidal selectivity so glyphosate can be applied directly to these plants rather than only for preplant applications. As an additional physiological mechanism, activity of this duplicate pathway requires energy from the plant that could be used for yield. The RR genes are ‘silent’ in meristematic tissues where glyphosate accumulates so that these rapidly metabolizing tissues are not provided an active alternative EPSPS pathway to counter the physiological effects of glyphosate’s inhibition of EPSPS. Meristematic tissues also are areas of high physiologic activity requiring a higher availability of the essential micronutrients needed for cell division and growth that glyphosate immobilizes by chelation. Residual glyphosate in RR plant tissues can immobilize Fe, Mn, Zn or other nutrients applied as foliar amendments for 8-35 days after it has been applied. This reduces the availability of micronutrients required for photosynthesis, disease resistance, and other critical physiological functions.The presence of the RR gene(s) reduces nutrient uptake and physiological efficiency and may account for some of the ‘yield drag’ reported for RR crops when compared with the ‘normal’ isolines from which they were derived. Reduced physiological efficiency from the RR gene is also reflected in reduced water use efficiency (WUE) and increased drought stress (table 2). It should be recognized that: 1. There is nothing in the glyphosate-tolerant plant that operates on the glyphosate applied to the plant. 2. All the technology does is insert an alternative enzyme (EPSPS-II) that is not blocked by glyphosate in mature tissue. 3. When glyphosate enters the plant, it is not selective; it chelates with a host of elements influencing nutrient availability, disease resistance, and the plant’s other physiological functions. 4. Glyphosate is present for the life of the plant or until it is exuded into soil or groundwater through the roots. Degradation products are toxic to RR and non-RR plants. TABLE 2. Some things we know about the glyphosate-tolerance (RR) gene(s).   1. Provides selective herbicidal activity for glyphosate. 2. Inserts an alternative EPSPS pathway that is not sensitive to glyphosate action in mature tissue. 3. Reduces the plant’s physiological efficiency of Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, etc. 4. Inactive (silent) in meristematic tissues (root and shoot tips, legume root nodules, and reproductive tissues). 5. Reduces nutrient uptake and efficiency. 6. Increases drought stress. 7. Reduces N-fixation. 8. Lowers seed nutrient content. 9. Transferred in pollen to plants, and from degrading plant tissues to microbes. 10. Generally causes a yield ‘drag’ compared with near-isogenic normal plants from which it was derived. 11. Has greatly increased the application of glyphosate. 12. Permanent in plants once it is introduced. INTERACTIONS OF GLYPHOSATE WITH PLANT NUTRITION   Glyphosate can affect nutrient efficiency in the plant by chelating essential nutrient co-factors after application since there is many times more ‘free’ glyphosate in the plant than all of the unbound cat-ions. Chelation of Mn and other micronutrients after application of glyphosate is frequently observed as a ‘flashing’ or yellowing that persists until the plant can ‘resupply’ the immobilized nutrients. The duration of ‘flashing’ is correlated with the availability of micronutrients in soil. Symptom remission indicates a resumption of physiological processes, but is not an indicator of plant nutrient sufficiency since micronutrient deficiencies are commonly referred to as ‘hidden hunger.’ As a strong nutrient chelator, glyphosate can reduce physiological efficiency by immobilizing elements required as components, co-factors or regulators of physiological functions at very low rates. Thus, plant uptake and or translocation of Fe, Mn and Zn are drastically reduced (up to 80 %) by commonly observed ‘drift’ rates of glyphosate (<1 and="" are="" by="" common="" disease.="" efficiency="" exacerbate="" exudates="" ferric="" glyphosate="" herbicidal="" in="" increased="" inhibited="" is="" levels="" low-available="" lower="" microbial="" micronutrient="" mineral="" nutrient="" of="" p="" physiological="" plant="" production="" rate="" reduced="" reductase="" reflected="" reproductive="" root="" siderophores="" soils.="" stress="" susceptibility="" the="" this="" tissues="" to="" under="" vegetative=""> Glyphosate is not readily degraded in soil and can probably accumulate for many years chelated with soil cat-ions. Degradation products of glyphosate are as damaging to RR crops as to non-RR crops. Persistence and accumulation of glyphosate in perennial plants, soil, and root meristems, can significantly reduce root growth and the development of nutrient absorptive tissue of RR as well as non-RR plants to further impair nutrient uptake and efficiency. Impaired root uptake not only reduces the availability of specific nutrients, but also affects the natural ability of plants to compensate for low levels of many other nutrients. Glyphosate also reduces nutrient uptake from soil indirectly through its toxicity to many soil microorganisms responsible for increasing the availability and access to nutrients through mineralization, reduction, symbiosis, etc. Degradation of plant tissues through growth, necrosis, or mineralization of residues can release accumulated glyphosate from meristematic tissues in toxic concentrations to plants. The most damaging time to plant wheat in ryegrass ‘burned down’ by glyphosate is two weeks after glyphosate application to correspond with the release of accumulated glyphosate from decomposing meristematic tissues. This is contrasted with the need to delay seeding of winter wheat for 2-3 weeks after a regular weed burn-down’ to permit time for immobilization of glyphosate from root exudates and direct application through chelation with soil cat-ions. The Roundup® label for Israel lists recommended waiting times before planting a susceptible crop on that soil. One of the benefits of crop rotation is an increased availability of nutrients for a subsequent crop in the rotation. The high level of available Mn (130 ppm) after a normal corn crop is not observed after glyphosate-treated RR corn. The lower nutrient availability after specific RR crop sequences may need to be compensated for through micronutrient application in order to optimize yield and reduce disease in a subsequent crop. THE INFLUENCE OF GLYPHOSATE ON SOIL ORGANISMS IMPORTANT FOR ACCESS, MINERALIZATION, SOLUBILIZATION, AND FIXATION OF ESSENTIAL PLANT NUTRIENTS   Glyphosate is a potent microbiocide and is toxic to earthworms, mycorrhizae (P & Zn uptake), reducing microbes that convert insoluble soil oxides to plant available forms (Mn and Fe, Pseudomonads, Bacillus, etc.), nitrogen-fixing organisms (Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium), and organisms involved in the ‘natural,’ biological control of soilborne diseases that reduce root uptake of nutrients. Although glyphosate contact with these organisms is limited by rapid chelation-immobilization when applied on fallow soil; glyphosate in root exudates, or from decaying weed tissues or RR plants, contacts these organisms in their most active ecological habitat throughout the rhizosphere. It is not uncommon to see Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, and Zn deficiencies intensify and show in soils that were once considered fully sufficient for these nutrients. Increasing the supply and availability of Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, and Zn have reduced some of the deleterious effects of glyphosate on these organisms and increased crop yields. In contrast to microbial toxicity, glyphosate in soil and root exudates stimulates oxidative soil microbes that reduce nutrient availability by decreasing their solubility for plant uptake, immobilize nutrients such as K in microbial sinks to deny availability for plants, and deny access to soil nutrients through pathogenic activity. Plant pathogens stimulated by glyphosate (table 3) include ubiquitous bacterial and fungal root, crown, and stalk rotting fungi; vascular colonizing organisms that disrupt nutrient transport to cause wilt and die-back; and root nibblers that impair access or uptake of soil nutrients. TABLE 3. Some plant pathogens stimulated by glyphosate.   Botryospheara dothidea Gaeumannomyces graminis Corynespora cassicola Magnaporthe grisea Fusarium species Marasmius spp. F. avenaceum Monosporascus cannonbalus F. graminearum Myrothecium verucaria F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense Phaeomoniella chlamydospora F. oxysporum f.sp. (canola) Phytophthora spp. F. oxysporum f.sp. glycines Pythium spp. F. oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum Rhizoctonia solani F. solani f.sp. glycines Septoria nodorum F. solani f.sp. phaseoli Thielaviopsis bassicola F. solani f.sp. pisi Xylella fastidiosa Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis (Goss’ wilt) HERBICIDAL MODE OF ACTION OF GLYPHOSATE   As a strong metal micronutrient chelator, glyphosate inhibits activity of EPSPS and other enzymes in the Shikimate metabolic pathway responsible for plant resistance to various pathogens. Plant death is through greatly increased plant susceptibility of non-RR plants to common soilborne fungi such as Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Phytophthora, etc. that are also stimulated by glyphosate (Johal and Rahe, 1984; Levesque and Rahe, 1992; Johal and Huber, 2009). It is very difficult to kill a plant in sterile soil by merely shutting down the Shikimate pathway (secondary metabolism) unless soilborne pathogens are also present. It is the increased susceptibility to soilborne pathogens, and increased virulence of the pathogens, that actually kills the plants after applying glyphosate. Disease resistance in plants is manifest through various active and passive physiological mechanisms requiring micronutrients. Those metabolic pathways producing secondary anti-microbial compounds (phytoalexins, flavenoids, etc.), pathogen inhibiting amino acids and peptides, hormones involved in cicatrisation (walling off pathogens), callusing, and disease escape mechanisms can all be compromised by glyphosate chelation of micronutrient co-factors critical for enzyme function. Genetic modification of plants for glyphosate tolerance partially restores Shikimate pathway function to provide a selective herbicidal effect. INTERACTIONS OF GLYPHOSATE WITH PLANT DISEASE   Micronutrients are the regulators, activators, and inhibitors of plant defense mechanisms that provide resistance to stress and disease. Chelation of these nutrients by glyphosate compromises plant defenses and increases pathogenesis to increase the severity of many abiotic (bark cracking, nutrient deficiencies) as well as infectious diseases of both RR and non-RR plants in the crop production system (table 4). Many of these diseases are referred to as ‘emerging’ or reemerging’ diseases because they rarely caused economic losses in the past, or were effectively controlled through management practices. Non-infectious (Abiotic) Diseases: Research at Ohio State University has shown that bark cracking, sunscald, and winter-kill of trees and perennial ornamentals is caused by glyphosate used for under-story weed control, and that glyphosate can accumulate for 8-10 years in perennial plants. This accumulation of glyphosate can be from the inadvertent uptake of glyphosate from contact with bark (drift) or by root uptake from glyphosate in weed root exudates in soil. Severe glyphosate damage to trees adjacent to stumps of cut trees treated with glyphosate (to prevent sprouting in an effort to eradicate citrus greening or CVC) can occur through root translocation and exudation several years after tree removal. Infectious Diseases: Increased severity of the take-all root and crown rot of cereals (Gaeumannomyces graminis) after prior glyphosate usage has been observed for over 20 years and take-all is now a ‘reemerging’ disease in many wheat producing areas of the world where glyphosate is used for weed control prior to cereal planting. A related disease of cereals, and the cause of rice blast (Magnaporthe grisea), is becoming very severe in Brazil and is especially severe when wheat follows a RR crop in the rotation. Like take-all and Fusarium root rot, this soilborne pathogen also infects wheat and barley roots, and is a concern for U.S. cereal production. Fusarium species causing head scab are common root and crown rot pathogens of cereals everywhere; however, Fusarium head scab (FHB) has generally been a serious disease of wheat and barley only in warm temperate regions of the U.S. With the extensive use of glyphosate, it is now of epidemic proportions and prevalent throughout most of the cereal producing areas of North America. Canadian research has shown that the application of glyphosate one or more times in the three years previous to planting wheat was the most important agronomic factor associated with high FHB in wheat, with a 75 % increase in FHB for all crops and a 122 % increase for crops under minimum-till where more glyphosate is used. The most severe FHB occurs where a RR crop precedes wheat in the rotation for the same reason. Glyphosate altered plant physiology (carbon and nitrogen metabolism) increasing susceptibility of wheat and barley to FHB and increased toxin production, is also associated with a transient tolerance of wheat and soybeans to rust diseases. The increased FHB with glyphosate results in a dramatic increase in tricothecene (deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, ‘vomitoxins’) and estrogenic (zaeralenone) mycotoxins in grain; however, the high concentrations of mycotoxin in grain are not always associated with Fusarium infection of kernels. Quite often overlooked is the increase in root and crown rot by FHB Fusaria with glyphosate and the production of mycotoxins in root and crown tissues with subsequent translocation to stems, chaff and grain. Caution has been expressed in using straw and chaff as bedding for pigs or roughage for cattle because of mycotoxin levels that far exceeded clinically significant levels for infertility and toxicity. This also poses a health and safety concern for grain entering the food chain for humans. The list of diseases affected by glyphosate (see reference No. 18) is increasing as growers and pathologists recognize the cause-effect relationship. SPECIAL NUTRIENT CONSIDERATIONS IN A GLYPHOSATE-DOMINANT WEED MANAGEMENT ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM   There are two things that should be understood in order to remediate nutrient deficiencies in a glyphosate usage program: 1) the effects of glyphosate on nutrient availability and function and 2) the effect of the RR gene on nutrient efficiency. With this understanding, there are four objectives for fertilization in a glyphosate environment – all of which indicate a more judicious use of glyphosate as part of the remediation process. These four objectives are to: 1. Provide adequate nutrient availability for full functional sufficiency to compensate for glyphosate and RR reduced availability or physiological efficiency of micronutrients (esp. Mn and Zn but also Cu, Fe, Ni). 2. Detoxify residual glyphosate in meristematic and other tissues, in root exudates, and in soil by adding appropriate elements for chelation with the residual glyphosate. 3. Restore soil microbial activity to enhance nutrient availability, supply, and balance that are inhibited by residual glyphosate in soil and glyphosate in root exudates. 4. Increase plant resistance to root infecting and reemerging diseases through physiological plant defense mechanisms dependent on the Shikimate, amino acid, and other pathways that are compromised by micronutrient inefficiency in a glyphosate environment. Meeting Nutrient Sufficiency: Extensive research has shown that increased levels and availability of micronutrients such as Mn, Zn, Cu, Fe, Ni, etc can compensate for reduced nutrient efficiency and the inefficiency of RR crops. This need may not be manifest in high fertility or nutrient toxic soils for a few years after moving to a predominantly monochemical strategy. The timing for correcting micronutrient deficiencies is generally more critical for cereal plants (barley, corn, wheat) than for legumes in order to prevent irreversible yield and/or quality loss. Nutrient sufficiency levels from soil and tissue analysis that are considered adequate for non-GM crops may need to be increased for RR crops to be at full physiological sufficiency. Since residual ‘free’ glyphosate in RR plant tissues can immobilize most regular sources of foliar-applied micronutrients for 8-15 days, and thereby reduce the future availability of these materials, it may be best to apply some micronutrients 1-2 weeks after glyphosate is applied to RR crops. The expense of an additional trip across the field for foliar application frequently deters micronutrient fertilization for optimum crop yield and quality. There are newly available micronutrient formulations (nutrient phosphites) that maintain plant availability without impacting herbicidal activity of the glyphosate in a tank-mix, and plants have responded well from these micronutrient-glyphosate mixes. Simultaneous application of some micronutrients with glyphosate might provide an efficient means to overcome deficiencies in low fertility soils, as well as mitigate the reduced physiological efficiency inherent with the glyphosate-tolerant gene and glyphosate immobilization of essential nutrients in the plant. Under severe micronutrient deficiency conditions, selecting seed high in nutrient content or a micronutrient seed treatment to provide early nutrient sufficiency, establish a well-developed root system, and insure a vigorous seedling plant with increased tolerance to glyphosate applied later, has been beneficial even though excess nutrient applied at this time may be immobilized by glyphosate from root exudates and not available for subsequent plant uptake. Micronutrients such as Mn are not efficiently broadcast applied to soil for plant uptake because of microbial immobilization to non-available oxidized Mn, but could be applied in a band or to seed or foliage. Detoxifying Residual Glyphosate: Some nutrients are relatively immobile in plant tissues (Ca, Mn) so that a combination of micronutrients may be more beneficial than any individual one to chelate with residual glyphosate and ‘detoxify’ it in meristematic and mature tissues. Thus, foliar application of Mn could remediate for glyphosate immobilization of the nutrient; however, it may be more effective when applied in combination with the more mobile Zn to detoxify sequestered glyphosate in meristematic tissues even though Zn levels may appear sufficient. Gypsum applied in the seed row has shown some promise for detoxifying glyphosate from root exudates since Ca is a good chelator with glyphosate (one of the reasons that ammonium sulfate is recommended in spray solutions with hard water is to prevent chelation with Ca and Mg which would inhibit herbicidal activity). Although bioremediation of accumulating glyphosate in soil may be possible in the future, initial degradation products of glyphosate are toxic to both RR and non-RR plants. This is an area that needs greater effort since the application of phosphorus fertilizers can desorb immobilized glyphosate to be toxic to plants through root uptake. Micronutrient seed treatment can provide some detoxification during seed germination, and stimulate vigor and root growth to enhance recovery from later glyphosate applications. Biological Remediation: The selection and use of plants for glyphosate-tolerance that have greater nutrient efficiency for uptake or physiological function has improved the performance of some RR crops, and further improvements are possible in this area. Enhancing soil microbial activity to increase nutrient availability and plant uptake has been possible through seed inoculation, environmental modification to favor certain groups of organisms, and implementation of various management practices. There are many organisms that have been used to promote plant growth, with the most recognized being legume inoculants (Rhizobia, Bradyrhizobia species); however, glyphosate is toxic to these beneficial microorganisms. Continued use of glyphosate in a cereal-legume rotation has greatly reduced the population of these organisms in soil so that annual inoculation of legume seed is frequently recommended. Biological remediation to compensate for glyphosate’s impact on soil organisms important in nutrient cycles may be possible if the remediating organism is also glyphosate-tolerant and capable of over coming the soils natural biological buffering capacity. This would be especially important for nitrogen-fixing, mycorrhizae, and mineral reducing organisms, but will be of limited benefit unless the introduced organisms are also tolerant of glyphosate. Modification of the soil biological environment through tillage, crop sequence, or other cultural management practices might also be a viable way to stimulate the desired soil biological activity. Increasing Plant Resistance to Stress and Root-Infecting Pathogens: Maintaining plant health is a basic requirement for crop yield and quality. Plant tolerance to stress and many pathogens is dependent on a full sufficiency of micronutrients to maintain physiological processes mediated through the Shikimate or other pathways that are compromised in a glyphosate environment. Sequential application(s) of specific micronutrients (esp. Ca, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn) may be required to compensate for those nutrients physiologically lost through glyphosate chelation. Breeding for increased nutrient efficiency and disease resistance will be an important contributor to this objective. SUMMARY   Glyphosate is a strong, broad-spectrum nutrient chelator that inhibits plant enzymes responsible for disease resistance so that plants succumb from pathogenic attack. This also predisposes RR and non-RR plants to other pathogens. The introduction of such an intense mineral chelator as glyphosate into the food chain through accumulation in feed, forage, and food, and root exudation into ground water, could pose significant health concerns for animals and humans and needs further evaluation. Chelation immobilization of such essential elements as Ca (bone), Fe (blood), Mn, Zn (liver, kidney), Cu, Mg (brain) could directly inhibit vital functions and predispose to disease. The lower mineral nutrient content of feeds and forage from a glyphosate-intense weed management program can generally be compensated for through mineral supplementation. The various interactions of glyphosate with nutrition are represented in the following schematic: Table X. Some symptoms of glyphosate damage to non-target plants. 1. Micronutrient (and often some macronutrient) deficiency 2. Low vigor, slow growth, stunting 3. Leaf chlorosis (yellowing) – complete or between the veins 4. Leaf mottling with or without necrotic spots 5. Leaf distortion – small, curling, strap-like, wrinkling, or ‘mouse ear’ 6. Abnormal bud break, stem proliferation – witches broom 7. Retarded, slow regrowth after cutting or running (alfalfa, perennial plants) 8. Lower yields, lower mineral value – vegetative parts and reproductive (grain, seeds) 9. Early fruit, bud, or leaf drop 10. Early maturity, death before physiological maturity, tip die-back 11. Predisposition to infectious diseases and extended infection/susceptible period– numerous 12. Predisposition to insect damage 13. Induced abiotic diseases – drought, winter kill, sun scald, bark cracking (perennial plants) 14. Root stunting, inefficient N-fixation and uptake 15. Poor root nodulation in legumes Proceedings Fluid Fertilizer Forum, Scottsdale, AZ February 14-16, 2010. Vol. 27. Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, Manhattan, KS. DOWNLOAD FULL PAPER HERE INCLUDING REFERENCES Also: Some Selected References on Glyphosate

GMOs = EPIC FAIL

The scumbags are at it again...

Chemtrails Killing Organic Crops, Monsanto’s GMO Seeds Thrive

May 3, 2013 at 9:35 am 

Organic farmers and our food supply have a huge environmental hazard to contend with compliments of the U.S. government – chemtrails. Chemtrails are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in programs directed by various government officials. These sprays pollute the soil, water and air while compromising the health of humans, animals and plants. But wait – Monsanto has developed seeds that will weather the effect of the sprays, creating a tidy profit for the corporation while organics suffer.

Monsanto’s GMO seeds are specially designed to grow in the high presence of aluminum. Aluminum is the chemical found in chemtrails. If this poisoning continues, true organic farming may become impossible in the not so distant future. When aluminum pollutes soil and water it kills crops. It collects in people and causes diseases!

Chemtrail cocktail
Geo-engineering food companies such as Monsanto use the governments claim of slowing down global warming through chemtrails to justify the need for the GMO seeds. The problem with chemtrails is that what goes up, must come down. These chemicals are seriously polluting our waterways and soil while seeping into crops and contaminating livestock, not to mention changing the weather patterns. Plants are especially sensitive to the soil degradation that occurs with chemtrail spraying, creating serious issues concerning our food supply.

Genetically Engineered Seeds Resistant
Mosantano in cooperation with the government has designed genetically modified seeds which withstand the effects of chemtrails. The seeds are designed to survive extreme weather conditions, pollution, salt stress, heavy metals and chemtrails. Organic and natural crops will die from severe pollution and the chemtrails while Monsanto continues to profit. Further proof that the government and giant food cooperation’s are controlling the food supply.
Original URL: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/chemtrails-kill-crops/
But it doesn't end here...
Exposing Kashi cereal for the poison that it isJuly 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm
by Natasha Longo – Preventdisease.com
There is an established misconception among consumers that natural or even organic labeling means more nutritious and less toxic ingredients. This is not always the case and breakfast cereals are no exception. The Kashi brand is owned by Kellogg Company, one of the largest breakfast cereal makers in the world. The ownership base of Kashi is still not widely recognized or common knowledge, especially since the Kashi website continues to paint a picture of being a small company. Investigations into Kashi cereals show deceiving claims after their breakfast products were found to be riddled with genetically modified (GM) and pesticide loaded ingredients.

The deception at Kashi runs deep, especially when it comes to its association with Kellogg which is kept very discreet from the public. “We are a small (after 25 years, still fewer than 70 of us) band of passionate people,” it says, despite being owned by the nation’s largest cereal manufacturer. Kellogg does not include its name on Kashi packaging.
The Cornucopia Institute’s “Cereal Crimes” investigation uncovered some distrubing facts about this supposed natural breakfast cereal. The investigations found that Kashi brand cereals contain “high levels” of genetically engineered ingredients. These include soy and corn based ingredients.

For non-organic “natural” products making “non-GMO” claims, results showed that these claims cannot always be trusted.

Most companies do not share detailed standards for “natural” foods with the public. Kashi would likely be uncomfortable sharing with their customers that their “natural” foods contain hexane-extracted and genetically engineered soy ingredients.

On August 31, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against Kashi for allegedly misleading consumers with its “natural” claims. One Kashi product in particular, GoLean Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff.

Kashi Heart to Heart Blueberry Cereal was found to contain organophosphate pesticides implicated as causes of neuropathy in humans.

“Natural” Kashi Golean Honey almond Flax was found to contain malathion in the wheat and chlorpyrifos and piperonyl butoxide in the almonds both which are prohibited in organics due to their neurotoxicity and hormone disrupting ability in mammals.

Other toxic ingredients in Kashi cereals include GM canola oil, GM corn flour, GM corn meal, GM corn bran, irradiated cinnamon and soy lecithin.

Golean Original Cereal contains GM soy grits and protein, GM corn meal, GM corn flour and GM corn bran.

Golean Crisp! Cinnamon Crumble contains GM soy grits and protein, GM canola oil, GM corn flour, irradiated cinnamon and soy lecithin.

Golean Crisp! Toasted Berry Crumble contains GM soy grits and protein, GM canola oil, GM corn flour and soy lecithin.

All other Golean products contain similar toxins in their ingredient lists.
Kashi sources all of their grains from farms in the US. They do import some fruits from other countries, but the soy is primarily grown in the USA. Corn-based ingredients are also locally derived. Since 95% of Soy and 80% of Corn is Genetically Modified you can expect any non-organic product that contains either of these two ingredients to be GM.

Kashi has attempted to improve their public image by joining the Non-GMO Project and have their products tested and verified to be GMO-free. The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization which offers North America’s only third party verification and labeling for non-GMO food and products.Their standard includes the following;

“Absence of all GMOs is the target for all Non-GMO Project Standard compliant products. Continuous improvement practices toward achieving this goal must be part of the Participant’s quality management systems.”
However since cross pollination can occur, there is never enough testing procedures to follow-up on every single grower’s operation. That’s why many products still contain GM corn and soy, despite being enrolled in the Non-GMO Project. According to the Cornucopia Institute, the Non-GMO Project “enrolls” products before it verifies them as being non-GMO which doesn’t make very much sense.

It is in your best interest to stay away from anything Kashi or Kellogg. Always remember that “natural” and even some “organic” standards depend on how these standards impact profitability.

Environmental concerns are unlikely to weigh heavily, if at all, in this profitability equation. If the company is a publicly traded corporation, such as Kellogg Company their primary legal responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders. Consumer opinion is insignificant until it reaches the masses and a full boycott is achieved. So how many people will you share this with? Only you can make a difference.

Natasha Longo has a master’s degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.
Original URL: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/exposing-kashi-cereal-for-the-poison-that-it-is/
Wow. There can't be any worse news, can there?
Genetically modified corn contains practically no nutrients but is loaded with chemical poisonsJuly 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm

by Jonathan Benson – Naturalnews.com
A breakthrough report on the nutritional density of genetically-modified (GM) corn crops demolishes all existing claims that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs.

According to Momsacrossamerica.com, a report Entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, reveals not only that GMO corn is greatly lacking in vitamins and minerals compared to non-GMO corn, but also that it is highly toxic and filled with deadly crop chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup).

The owners of the blog say the report was shared with them by De Dell Seed Company, Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed supplier, which obtained it from a Minnesota-based agricultural company called ProfitPro. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Concerning energy content, as measured in terms of ERGS, non-GMO corn was found in tests to give off 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn, an astounding variance. And as far as its overall percentage of organic matter is concerned, non-GMO corn was determined to have nearly twice as much of this vital component compared to GMO corn.

Non-GMO corn contains substantially more potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulfur and manganese
The field comparison also evaluated individual nutrient deviations, which revealed some shocking facts. Potassium, which is necessary for energy production and proper cellular function, is barely even present in GMO corn, having clocked in at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). In non-GMO corn, however, potassium levels were more than 13 times higher, testing at 9.2 ppm.

The disparity was even worse for magnesium, which tested at a mere 0.2 ppm in GMO corn. In non-GMO corn, however, magnesium levels were found to be 46 times higher than in non-GMO corn. Similar variances were observed for calcium, sulfur and manganese as well, with the contents of each being 12.4, 14, and seven times higher, respectively.

On the other hand, non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate, and other harmful chemicals, while in GMO corn they were identified in dangerously high levels. According to an analysis of the report by MomsAcrossAmerica.com, GMO corn contains about 19 times more glyphosate than is permitted as a maximum in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 130 times more glyphosate than has been found in tests to cause organ damage in animals.

Similarly, GMO corn contains dangerously high levels of formaldehyde, according to the report. A previous study conducted by Dr. Don Huber on GMOs revealed that .97 ppm of formaldehyde is toxic if ingested by animals. As it turns out, GMO corn contains 200 times more formaldehyde than this maximum safety threshold.

Monsanto engaged in massive fraud with claims that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GMOs
These shock findings are at great odds with the claims continually being made by agri-genocide giant Monsanto. On its corporate website, Monsanto claims that approved genetically-modified (GM) crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs, meaning they are not nutritionally different from non-GMO crops. But as this study shows, these claims are patently false, and indicate that Monsanto is engaged in a global agricultural scam based on complete lies.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc, copper, etc. that are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals,” explains Dr. Huber about how GMO crop chemicals literally destroy the nutrient content of GMO crops.

Original URL: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/genetically-modified-corn-contains-practically-no-nutrients-but-is-loaded-with-chemical-poisons/
Okay...at least you can go and have some McDonald's fries and not have to think about GMOs, right? They're just normal, straight-cut potatoes with salt and nothing else, right?
Right?
McDonald’s Reveals 17 Foul Ingredients in Their French Fries – Including GMOsJuly 7, 2013 at 4:08 pm
by Editor – Preventdisease.com
The transparency campaign initiated by McDonald’s last year was intended at marketing a more health conscious image of McDonald’s Corp.–and at using social media more effectively, but instead of talking about their love for the brand, the hashtag became a forum for people to talk about how disgusting they believe the food is. The ingredients in their french fries went viral. Instead of the basic two ingredients-potatoes and oil, consumers found out McDonald’s french fries contain 17 ingredients.

The campaign isn’t brand new. Launched by McDonalds last June using a YouTube video to answer a consumer’s question about why their food looks so drastically different in commercials than in the restaurant, the “Our Food, Your Questions” premise opened McDonalds’ kitchen doors, lending the brand to a supposed more honest and transparent feel. By prompting consumers to ask their questions on Facebook or Twitter, McDonalds hoped to build trust and credibility in a marketplace where bad press has followed them in the form of viral videos and unappetizing images.

McDonald’s eventually began disclosing the secret behind how the fast food chain’s fries are made. They produced a video answering a series of questions about McDonald’s fries: where the potatoes come from, how they are processed, what kind of oil they’re fried in, and why there is so much salt on them.

Mario Dupuis, a production manager at McCain Foods in New Brunswick, discussed where the potatoes are washed, peel and cut. They are also blanched to “remove natural sugars” that would cause colour variations then soaked in dextrose for an even colour. There’s also an ingredient to prevent greying, drying to remove excess moisture and a quick-fry for 45 to 60 seconds before the fries are frozen for shipping.

The worst part are the ingredients. Instead of the standard two ingredients necessary to make french fries-potatoes and oil, there are approximately 17 as reported on the ingredients facts list on the McDonald’s website.

They include: Potatoes, canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, safflower oil, natural flavour (vegetable source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain colour), citric acid (preservative), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent) and cooked in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with THBQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane) and salt (silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodide).

At a glance, many of the ingredients above are hazardous to human health, including those which are genetically modified (canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil), hydrogenated (soybean oil), chemically preserved and antifoaming (THBQ, citric acid, dimethylpolysiloxane), and artificially colored (sodium acid pyrophosphate).

How many people do you think have an awareness that McDonald’s french fries contain this many ingredients? Thanks for the transparency McDonald’s…hopefully it will help wake up more people to the difference between your artificial food and real food.
Original URL: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/mcdonalds-reveals-17-foul-ingredients-in-their-french-fries-including-gmos/

Holy sheep shite.