Sunday, August 19, 2018

A CIA / BEZOS TRIUMPH: WHOLE FOODS BACKS OFF MANDATORY GMO LABELING

from The Daily Sheeple:

Whole Foods is pulling on the reins when it comes to mandatory GMO labeling in their stores. The Austin, Texas-based company announced the mandatory initiative in 2013, and a letter sent to suppliers in mid-May by A.C. Gallo, chief operations officer, said Whole Foods’ plans are on hold.

The natural food retailer, which was acquired by Amazon last August, said it’s pausing the plan in response to supplier concerns over the ruling as the USDA is currently accepting comments on what is likely to be a government-enforced GMO labeling law.

GMO GEOPOLITICS: PUTIN CONFIRMS IT

0

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

For years I’ve been arguing that there is a GMO geopolitics going on in the world, as European and American agribusiness cartels – think only of IG Farbensanto, my nickname for the whole GMO-food control project, recently made a reality by German giant Bayer buying out American Monsanto (in cash!) – try to gain control of the world’s food supply through patented seeds, and while other countries, Russia and India, have resisted. I’ve been arguing that Russia’s growing stance against GMOs would position it as the world’s biggest non-GMO food supplier. This article, shared by Mr. B., makes it abundantly clear that this is exactly what is in Mr. Putin’s mind:

GMO GEOPOLITICS: CHINA’S TIT-FOR-TAT TARIFFS

0

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

The past couple of days I’ve been following stories related to what I’ve been calling (for several years) “GMO geopolitics.” In yesterday’s blog, GMO Geopolitics: Of Seed Banks and Syria, I outlined the basic feature of this idea as follows:

Over the years of watching and occasionally blogging about the international scope of the GMO issue, I’ve also watched the development of GMO geopolitics, as I like to call it. We may conveniently define this in two ways: (1) those powers of nations which are home to large agribusiness cartels and trusts, like the USA or Germany with IG Farbensanto, will pursue agricultural policies on the world stage designed to curtail, and eventually eliminate, natural (or as they’re sometimes called, heirloom) seeds, thus gaining control over the world’s food supply, and enriching themselves in the process, since heirloom seeds cannot be patented and charged a royalty for use, while GMO seeds can. In pursuit of this nothing-less-than-diabolical goal, any science or counter-arguments about the health and/or environmental safety of GMOs, or, in some cases, studies about falling yields and rising cost studies that would indicate heirloom seeds are a better investment than GMOs, will be suppressed.

CORPORATE RETALIATION: MONSANTO IS TRYING TO TAKE DOWN CIVIC GROUP THAT WARNED ABOUT HEALTH RISKS OF GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE

0

by Ethan Huff, The Daily Sheeple:

A group that dedicates itself to conjoining people with the pressing policy issues that affect them is being targeted by the world’s most evil corporation for daring to spread the truth about the toxicity of glyphosate, a highly pervasive crop chemical that’s commonly sprayed on genetically-modified (GM) crops.

According to reports, Monsanto has served the civic campaigning group Avaaz with a 168-page subpoena that demands all of its internal correspondences concerning glyphosate – more than a decade’s worth – be turned over to the New York Supreme Court.

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: SYRIA, IRAQ, AND SEED BANKS

0

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

Here’s a bit of intriguing dot-connecting about GMOS to put in your GMO scrapbook:

One of the very interesting things about a “community-driven” blogsite such as this is that I am constantly amazed at people’s ability to connect dots, and that’s the case today with some very interesting dots connected by Mr. M.A., who took the time to share his labors, and whose dot-connecting I hope to do some justice to today.

First, a little context. Many readers here who have been following my various interviews and blogs over the years are probably already aware that I view the US “intervention” as being an operation with a multitude of objectives, among them obvious ones like “securing the oil supply”(Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria) to much less obvious ones such as “securing the drug supply”(Afghanistan) to securing access to potential ancient archaeological sites, ancient knowledge and its potential awareness of technologies and weapons of mass destruction (Iraq, Syria), and so on. Another way of putting that is that the so-called intelligence briefing about Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a complete fabrication (that is, if one were only looking for a-bombs and chemical and biological weapons) may not have been so, if one considers the angle of potential “ancient technology.”

Which brings us to Mr. M.A.’s high octane speculation, which I am going to try to do my best to summarize, for there may be yet another motivation in addition to the above: seeds, and food, and more specifically, non-GMO seeds.

He begins by pointing out this old article from Zero Hedge, and specifically, one sentence within it:

The Arctic Doomsday Seed-Vault Is Getting Some Major Upgrades

Toward the end of this article, Mr. M.A. drew attention to this statement:

According to the Norwegian government, the seed vault has been used one time.Back in 2015, ICARDA International Research Center, which operated a location out of Aleppo, Syria, was blown up. The organization requested seeds from its deposits at Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which demonstrates the importance of the backup vault in the Arctic. (Emphasis added)

In other words, Syria had a natural seeds vault in Aleppo (see this article, says Mr. M.A.: In the midst of war, this Syrian seed bank is still going) which, gee whiz, turned out to be a hotbed of terrorist activity and a constant thorn in the government of Mr. Assad, until Mr. Putin decided to intervene and stop the Turkish-Israeli-Saudi-US-sponsored nonsense.

Funny how that worked out.

But wait, there’s more: for in the second article linked above, one reads this:

The destruction of Iraq’s seed bank in Abu Ghraib in 2003, and the subsequent domination of Iraqi agricultural reconstruction by U.S. agribusiness interests, provides a cautionary tale. Here, destruction and reconstruction occurred over a decade rather than a millennium, transforming rural economies. When war ravages a country, the continuity of its agricultural systems is also destroyed. Farmers might keep their lives but lose land and seed stocks carefully stewarded for generations because they lack the resources for reconstruction. (Emphasis added)

Abu Ghraib… a seed vault! You don’t say! Was this the real reason that the “powers that be” were in such a snit to shut down media attention on American crimes against Iraqi prisoners there?

But wait, there’s yet more: in that same second article, one reads that, lo and behold, there was yet another seed bank in – you guessed it – Kabul, Afghanistan (where presumably I.G. Farbensanto may have been concerned about the non-GMO opium poppy seeds):

ICARDA’s effort is itself a result of previous conflicts. In 2002, the American war in Afghanistan destroyed the national seed bank in Kabul, and looters completed the destruction unfinished by combat. ICARDA’s collection holds seeds salvaged from Iraq’s national seed bank in Abu Ghraib. These are among the collections duplicated in Svalbard. (Emphasis added)

And there’s this, too, which conjures images of Mr. Putin, who, let it be noted, hails from St. Peterburg (the former Leningrad); the staff of the Syrian seed bank stayed on site to maintain it at the risk of their lives, for a very simple reason:

Employees without the means to flee crisis have preserved the facility, at considerable risk to themselves. In this, they are like the staff of the Vavilov Research Institute in Russia who would rather starve during the Siege of Leningrad than consume or surrender the seeds they guarded.

Read More @ GizaDeathStar.com

Scientists Worried as US Gives Green Light to Genetically Modified Rice

0

from Sputnik News:

The approval of genetically modified Huahui No.1 rice by the US Food and Drug Administration paves the way for the Chinese GMO product to the international market. Speaking to Sputnik, Na Zhongyuan, the director of the Yunnan Institute for Ecological Agriculture, expressed his concerns about the use of genetically modified food.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially gave safety approval to China’s genetically modified Huahui No.1 rice grain; however, in China the large-scale cultivation of GMO cereals is still officially prohibited.

“The creation of genetically modified crops is one of new breed of scientific methods,” Na Zhongyuan, the director of the Yunnan Institute for Ecological Agriculture, told Sputnik China. “I do not exclude that if the research continues, the problems that cannot be solved right now could be eliminated in the future. However, currently studies indicate that [GMO] products are unsafe, and therefore cannot be used.”

According to the scientist, mass cultivation of genetically modified crops may damage biodiversity: “The risk here is much greater than that of widespread hybrid crops,” Na warned, adding that the use of GM products is a “forced measure.”

Professor Na Zhongyuan, who has been studying the problems of organic farming for many years, expressed confidence that GMO products will never conquer the market completely.

“This is absolutely impossible,” the scientist believes. “If it was not for our institute, the GMOs would quickly come out on top in China. The state is required to make a fair and open choice and in this case genetically modified products will completely lose their market. The technologies that we develop at the Institute of Ecological Agriculture surpass the methods of genetic engineering in almost every respect.”

Polls show that there is a strong belief among the Chinese about the potential danger of GMO products to human health. In 2016, in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang, the cultivation of genetically modified grain, including soy, was banned. In the survey, almost 91.5 percent of respondents expressed their disapproval of GMOs.

The rice, known as Huahui No.1 has been developed by a group of scientists since 1998 at Huazhong Agricultural University. The rice is resistant to many pests and thus does not require the excessive use of pesticides. In 2009 the product received a bio-safety certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China after 10 years of safety tests.

However, the product has never been released on the country’s commercial market and was banned for mass cultivation in China. Given the fact that the commercialization of GMO rice in China was prohibited Huazhong Agricultural University decided to enter the international market and has been trying to obtain approval and safety certification in other countries, including the US.

On January 11, 2017, the FDA confirmed that “human and animal foods from Huahui No.1 rice grain are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from rice-derived human and animal food currently on the market, and that genetically engineered Huahui No.1 rice grain does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by the FDA.”

According to the university’s statement the product previously passed a review on pesticide residue by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Read More @ SputnikNews.com

Monsanto’s latest marketing ploy: Labeling GMOs as “biofortified”

0

by Isabelle Z., Natural News:

GMOs have been getting a bad name for quite some time now, and it’s hardly surprising given the near-constant stream of evidence showing the harms caused by genetically engineered crops and the pesticides used on them. As people increasingly make an effort to avoid buying these products, Monsanto has come up with a new idea to trick people into forking over their hard-earned money for its health-destroying products.

The Waking Times reports that Monsanto is trying to manipulate the definitions used on food labels in such a way that GMOs could be labeled as “biofortified foods.”

Codex Alimentarius is a collection of codes and guidelines created by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to standardize world food trade and its production and safety. Codex was mulling a proposal to allow a company to use the term “biofortified” on vegetables that use conventional cross-breeding to increase the content of certain nutrients to help give malnourished populations a nutrition boost.

Monsanto sensed an opportunity here and set out to exploit it. They used their influence to try to convince delegates to have the definition of “biofortified” broadened to include foods that have been genetically modified. The National Health Federation (NHF), which is the only natural health advocate with a seat at Codex, reports that many of the delegates saw right through Monsanto’s attempt to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes, and the move was even denounced during the meeting. Nevertheless, the topic will be debated when the group convenes in Berlin this November under a new chairperson.

NHF President Scott Tips said: “It is a very sad state of affairs where we have come to the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition all because we have engaged in very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decline in the vitamins and minerals in our foods over the last 50 years. We will not remedy poor nutrition by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition.”

Monsanto wants to trick people into buying GMO foods

It’s easy to see why Monsanto would be so eager to use this term. The term “bio” is used to denote organic foods in many European countries, and consumers who look out for the “bio” label at the grocery store could easily confuse “biofortified” foods as being the complete opposite of what they truly are and end up buying the very thing they were trying to avoid in the first place. Indeed, the EU has raised an objection on the grounds that the term would confuse Europeans, and several EU counties have been vocal in supporting a more restrictive use of the term.

Even in the U.S., where the term “organic” is used instead, many people would construe this label as something positive, especially given its implication that a food has additional nutrients.

Creative labeling nothing new when it comes to unhealthy food

If Monsanto is successful, it will hardly be the first time that something undesirable masqueraded as something far more appealing. For example, consider the term “biosolids,” which are used to grow non-organic crops. On the surface, it sounds like something relatively innocuous, but it’s actually a euphemism for “human sewage sludge” – a nicer way of saying that the food is grown with feces and other disgusting things we flush down the toilet.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

DARPA developing “genetic doomsday” weapon to exterminate populations on demand… GMOs to become WMDs

by Mike Adams, Natural News:

The U.S. military agency known as DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is investing $100 million into so-called “genetic extinction technologies” that could be deployed to exterminate targeted human populations.

Emails acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), “suggest that the US’s secretive Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) has become the world’s largest funder of “gene drive” research,” reports The Guardian. “The use of genetic extinction technologies in bioweapons is the stuff of nightmares…” The Guardian reports.

The disclosure of this genetic extinction technology comes on the heels of Natural News blowing the whistle on a global eugenics program to target and exterminate people of African descent as part of an ongoing global depopulation agenda. In a one-hour video lecture published a few weeks ago, I detail the six vectors through which the weaponization of science and medicine is being deployed right now to exterminate blacks. See “The Science Agenda to Exterminate Blacks” for full details (full lecture video below).

Crispr gene editing technology becomes weaponized

The genetic doomsday weapon system now being developed by DARPA is based on the Crispr-Cas9 gene editing technique which allows simple, low-cost laboratories to achieve previously impossible genetic editing goals in almost any organism… including humans. “These might, for example, distort the sex-ratio of mosquitoes to effectively wipe out malarial populations,” explains The Guardian. But they could also be used to wipe out targeted genetic sub-species of humans, too.

“The dual use nature of altering and eradicating entire populations is as much a threat to peace and food security as it is a threat to ecosystems,” explained Jim Thomas, co-director of the ETC group, as reported by The Guardian. “Militarisation of gene drive funding may even contravene the Enmod convention against hostile uses of environmental modification technologies.”

Because much of the funding for modern-day science comes from military and government, scientists are finding themselves forced to work on “weaponization” programs or face a loss of funding. Via The Guardian:

Todd Kuiken, who has worked with the GBIRd programme, which receives $6.4m from Darpa, said that the US military’s centrality to gene tech funding meant that “researchers who depend on grants for their research may reorient their projects to fit the narrow aims of these military agencies”.

The weaponization of gene drive technology — turning genetics into a doomsday weapon — is widely known to be capable of spreading through a population and causing deliberate extinction. “Think of it as a way to supercharge evolution, forcing a genetic modification to spread through an entire population in just a few generations,” reports WIRED. The technology is so potentially devastating that former national intelligence director James Clapper classified gene drive technology as one of many “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation,” according to WIRED, which also said:

Taking into account things like how often Crispr screws up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, their work shows how gene drives could be ruthlessly aggressive.

Natural News warned the world about weaponized GMOs five years ago

As usual, Natural News was years ahead of the lagging scientific community in sounding the alarm over the weaponization of genetic engineering technology. In a 2012 article entitled, “S.O.S. alert: Help STOP Out-of-control Science from destroying us all,” I wrote about weaponized GMOs as a danger to human civilization:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of “science” has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific “progress” with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

SCIENTIFIC PROOF: Today’s poisons will pollute the gene pool until the year 2300 — both internal and external environmental memories are passed down for 14 generations

0

by Isabelle Z., Natural News:

When you live an unhealthy lifestyle, you might think that you’re only hurting yourself, but the truth is that you are setting up the next 14 generations to pay the consequences for your actions. Similarly, you are currently embodying what your own ancestors experienced a remarkable 14 generations ago.

A team of scientists led by the European Molecular Biology Organization in Spain illustrated this effect in studies using nematode roundworms that had been genetically engineered to carry a transgene for a type of fluorescent protein that made them glow brightly under ultraviolet light.

They then altered the temperatures in the containers of the nematodes to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point they barely glowed. After moving them to a space with temperatures nine degrees higher, their fluorescence gene activated and they glowed brilliantly. They even continued their glowing after being moved back to colder temperatures.

After following the offspring of these worms for seven generations, they discovered the baby worms inherited epigenetic genes for warmer climates even though they had not been exposed to those temperatures themselves at any point. After dividing them into groups and exposing half to colder temperatures and half to temperatures of 77 degrees, both groups still showed high fluorescence gene activity. In fact, they inherited the epigenetic genes for warmer climates through sperm and eggs. The researchers believe this could be some type of biological forward planning, and it went on for 14 generations in total.

Trauma and unhealthy habits affect future generations

This phenomenon has also been seen in humans. Trauma is one thing that can affect the DNA in sperm and change the behavior and brains of subsequent generations. For example, the children and grandchildren of female survivors of the Dutch famine in the 1940s had higher glucose intolerance as they got older, while descendants of Holocaust survivors have lower levels of cortisol, a hormone that can help the body recover from trauma. An examination of skulls belonging to Cherokee Native Americans descended from survivors of the Trail of Tears found that nutritional deficiencies, past traumas, and poor immune systems could also be inherited.

A study published in Nature Neuroscience found that mice who had been trained to avoid certain smells actually passed those aversions on to their grandchildren. The team of researchers from the Emory University School of Medicine responsible for that study wrote in their report: “The experiences of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations.”

Genetics have even been shown to affect the way that people look at images in their environments in studies with twins, influencing the way we seek out information and where we direct our gazes – and by extension, the way we interpret our world.

Future generations paying the price

A study from the University of Massachusetts Medical School revealed that just one junk-food-consuming generation could pass on the metabolic disorders such a lifestyle creates to the next generation – which is something you might want to keep in mind the next time you ponder having a donut.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

The Truth About Soy Boys

0

from Paul Joseph Watson:

Have scientists programmed GMO food to reduce the population? Evidence suggests reduced sperm counts, especially in black men, are a result of weaponized food

by Isabelle Z., Natural News:

Could a new technology for weaponizing food known as RNA interference be used for population control?

Genetic engineers found a way to make food crops grow fragments of RNA that they can use bioweapon-style to interfere with the physiological properties of any species eating the food. For example, it can cause corn to grow characteristics that will kill pests when they eat it so pesticides won’t be needed at all. This, of course, is presented as good news for humanity as it could eliminate the need for pesticides, but there is a huge caveat: This same technology could also be used to target not just pests but also human beings.

There are lots of possibilities here. For example, crops of food can be engineered to cause infertility in humans and some suspect it’s already being done; dropping sperm counts seem to indicate that something is indeed going on.

A recent study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem that was published in the Human Reproduction Journal Update revealed that human sperm production dropped by 59.3 percent between 1973 and 2011, which is a huge decline that could have serious implications. Much of it has been blamed on chemical exposure, specifically chemical castrators like atrazine. After all, the sperm drops are particularly prevalent in Western nations like the U.S. where GMO foods are widely consumed.

This statistic is something that population control proponents are surely pleased about. Many believe it’s being done intentionally, and it shows just how possible these frightening scenarios are. Just how far does this population control agenda go?

Black people have long been targeted in population reduction experiments

There have been lots of horrifying incidents in recent years in which blacks were targeted for experimentation and population reduction – and there could be many more that have yet to be exposed, so it’s not too far-fetched to imagine they’re being targeted right now by such technology. This is the topic of a new video lecture by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, called “The Science Agenda to Exterminate Blacks.” In the video, he talks about the “concerted, organized and longstanding effort to eliminate African Americans from the gene pool” and Africans in general.

In the video, he looks at how blacks have been targeted throughout the years. One of the more recent high-profile incidents was the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan’s water supply, an area largely populated by African Americans.

In another example, Pfizer officials were arrested in Nigeria a few years ago for illegally testing experimental antibiotics on children there. Eleven kids died and dozens of others were harmed in the incident.

Adams believes that in the recent Ebola outbreak that gripped Africa, weaponized strains of the disease were allowed to escape there to test their epidemiological impact and try out new drugs and also to encourage more funding.

Then there are the groups giving young African women vaccines like tetanus shots in the “Eliminate project” that analysis showed had a high percentage of covert sterilization chemicals.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

Killing Us Softly—Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide?

0

by F. William Engdahl, New Eastern Outlook:

One of the more bizarre actions in terms of the health and safety of EU citizens is the saga of Monsanto and its toxic herbicide or weed-killer, Roundup, the most widely used weed-killer on the planet. On October 25, 2017 the European Union Commission again announced that it lacked the necessary member state votes to approve a ten year license extension for weed-killer glyphosate. They will try again. Behind this seeming routine announcement is one of the hottest battles over food and human health the world has seen since the 1972 USA decision to ban spraying of deadly DDT pesticides on crops. This time the stakes go far beyond the ban on glyphosate. It affects the future of human fertility or lack of it.

In June 2016 the EU Commission made a rotten compromise to allow an 18 month extension of use in EU of glyphosate-based weed killers, during which time more scientific studies would supposedly clarify whether glyphosate was a carcinogen. It was the same member- states deadlock over whether to grant the toxic glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Roundup herbicide, a license renewal as we saw this October.

In March 2017 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the EU, issued a report stating that “available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria in the CLP Regulation to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or for reproductive toxicity.” The ECHA, based in Hensinki is a body created only in 2007 and established to monitor safe use of chemicals and to make information available rather than conduct its own tests on safety of chemicals. It made no independent study or tests to determine if glyphosate is or is not a probable carcinogen, a fact which Brussels and the pesticide industry slickly glosses over.

In March 2015, the WHO’s Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which has such research competence, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.”

In October 2015 before the license expiry deadline, some 47 environmental, health and cancer organizations, scientists and doctors wrote an open letter to EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis calling on the Commission to ban glyphosate pending a full scientific assessment. The assessment that the EU Commission was using was provided by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), and was based on industry safety studies given to BfR by Monsanto and other industry sources.

EU Corruption and human health

The determination of “non-carcinogenity” for glyphosate by using the ECHA was an apparent political ploy by the corrupt EU commission to get another “yes” body to back their pro-glyphosate stance, a stance that benefits only Monsanto and other agro-chemical producers at the expense of human life and health.

The source for both the EU’s European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency statements that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic, in contradiction to the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), is the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) responsible within the EU for the evaluation of glyphosate for the EU.

According to stated EU regulations, a substance is to be considered carcinogenic if two independently conducted animal studies show an increased tumor incidence. In the case of glyphosate, at least seven out of twelve such long-term studies found an increased tumor incidence.

A report by German toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing found that the EU bodies and the German body designated by the EU to evaluate the safety of glyphosate, the German BfR ignored those relevant studies. Clausing states, “BfR failed to recognize numerous significant tumor incidences, due to its failure to apply the appropriate statistical tests stipulated by the OECD and ECHA. BfR had instead relied on statistical tests applied by industry…” And the German BfR report was the basis for the later rubber-stamp determinations of EFSA and now of ECHA, the EU bodies entrusted with protecting the population from dangerous chemical toxins. Someone is being played for fools by Brussels, but the stakes involve far more in terms of human health and even human reproduction itself.

Sperm disruptor?

The dimensions of the human and animal exposure to the enormous quantities of glyphosate-based weed-killers in the world food chain are only dimly beginning to be appreciated. The reason is the enormous clout of the agro-chemical industry lobby around companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer AG, soon to be the owner of Monsanto. They have so far managed to use their financial resources and their legal resources to distort test results and to win regulatory approval from the demonstrably corrupt Monsanto-influenced Washington Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

From there it has spread to the EU Commission and relevant agencies such as EFSA and European Chemicals Agency, this despite the overwhelming popular rejection of GMO crops.

A recent study published by the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology–a study given no visibility in mainstream media–sounds the alarm over the effects of long-term human exposure to glyphosate for the healthy production of human sperm, an issue that is beginning to be cause of great alarm across the western countries where chemical herbicides and pesticides are used in massive doses by agro-industry producers.

The study, which definitely warrants major follow-up studies, found effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats, including

“a significant and differential expression of aromatase in testis.” Aromatase is an enzyme responsible for a key step in the biosynthesis of estrogens according to Wikipedia, found among other locations of the body in the brain and in the gonads, and is an important factor in sexual development. The authors concluded that, “The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.”

Ample tests now exist, independent of Monsanto and other corrupt industry sources demonstrating to an alarming degree that the exposure of human and animal species to glyphosate-based herbicides or weed-killers can cause cancer tumors but can also be damaging to human sexual reproduction, that is, as in the future of the human species.

Other tests have revealed presence of significant amounts of glyphosate from spraying of weed-killers in major portions of the population in the United States where Monsanto Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed-killers are used in massive doses in agriculture as well as in home gardens. A study of urine samples of willing volunteers seeking to know if they had glyphosate exposure by the University of California at San Francisco found glyphosate in 93{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB. The highest levels of glyphosate were found in the American West and Midwest, the heart of US agribusiness farming. The US-based Detox Project which published the study notes that “Glyphosate has never been studied by regulators or the chemical industry at levels that the human population in the U.S. is being exposed to–under 3 mg/kg body weight/day. This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as evidence suggests that low levels of the chemical may hack hormones even more than high levels…many toxic chemicals have as much or even more of an influence on our health at low doses– these chemicals are known as hormone hackers or endocrine disruptors. “

Isn’t that what eugenics advocates such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, the Rockefeller family and more recently Britain’s Prince William are cheering for? Culling of the human herd so that the wealthy have more wildlife speciesvii

Frederick Osborn, first President of John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council, and a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, formulated the problem the eugenics advocates around Rockefeller, people who financed Nazi eugenics research in Berlin, faced after the horrors of the Nazi extermination camps was uncovered and their inhuman experiments in eugenics of killing off inferior human beings as defined by the Third Reich.

Read More @ Journal-NEO.org
 

BOMBSHELL: Proof GMOs cannot be contained — GM mosquitoes have successfully mated with wild mosquitoes, spreading GM traits

0

by Tracey Watson, Natural News:

The scientific modification of plants and animals – and even humans – is often justified as being for the greater good. The long-term effects of such tinkering are often overlooked, however, and quite possibly pose serious and unexpected risks for humankind in the future. The most recent proof that the future effects of genetic modification can never really be fully understood in advance is an experiment on mosquitoes undertaken by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Science Daily recently reported that there has been a lot of interest in recent years in genetically modifying mosquitoes to “reduce or prevent the spread of disease.” One of the challenges faced by scientists interested in pursuing this field of study is getting GM mosquitoes to mate with regular, wild bugs. However, when a research team from the NIAID recently altered the microbiota of GM mosquitoes to suppress the parasites which cause malaria in humans, they found that the GM mosquitoes actually preferred to mate with wild mosquitoes rather than their GM counterparts.

Science Daily explains:

The researchers genetically modified Anopheles mosquitoes, which in nature spread the malaria-causing parasite Plasmodium. The team caged equal numbers of wild and GM mosquitoes and monitored their breeding over 10 generations. Ninety percent of the offspring in each generation passed along the GM trait. Even when combining 10 percent GM with 90 percent wild mosquitoes, the Plasmodium-resistance trait dominated after a few generations. Importantly, the GM mosquitoes maintained their resistance to the malaria parasite for 7 years.

The group also showed that the change in the microbiota resulted in a mating preference among the GM and wild mosquitoes. GM males showed a preference for wild females and wild males preferred GM females; these preferences contributed to the spread of the desired protective trait within the mosquito population.

Of course, the scientists were delighted with the unexpected result of their experiment. Nonetheless, it is sobering to realize that should these genetically modified mosquitoes get out into the wild they would very quickly completely overwhelm natural wild species. While this might sound like a good idea, we have no real idea what the ramifications of having genetically modified creatures overtaking natural species of any plant, animal or insect might be in the long-term.

And this is just one example of the dominance of genetically modified species. (Related: Has your DNA been altered by GMOs?)

Genetically modified canola plants spreading out of control

Back in 2010, Scientific American reported that canola plants with several transgenic traits were growing wild all over North Dakota. Canola – a plant modified in Canada to produce vegetable oil from its seeds – is farmed extensively in the state, and can now be found growing wild all over the place.

“We found transgenic plants growing in the middle of nowhere, far from fields,” said ecologist Cindy Sagers of the University of Arkansas (U.A.) in Fayetteville. “One of the ones with multiple traits was [in the middle of] nowhere, and believe me, there’s a lot of nowhere in North Dakota — nowhere near a canola field.” (Related: Learn more about the dangers of GMOs at GMO.news.)

This is an indicator that GM canola plants are cross-pollinating and taking over the naturally occurring traits of natural plants. As weed scientist Carol Mallory-Smith of Oregon State University noted, the danger is that such traits could increase the “invasiveness or weediness” of plants which could invade and overtake farmers’ crops.

Read More @ NaturalNews;com