War On You: Breaking Alternative News » GMO

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

WarOnYou — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:12:35 +0000

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

January 21, 2012

A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects.

Read More…

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

WarOnYou — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:16:48 +0000

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

The United States is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops with military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and released by the organization WikiLeaks.

Nations like France, which have moved to ban one of Monsanto’s GM corn varieties, were requested to be ‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and genetically modified foods.

The information reveals just how deep Monsanto’s roots have penetrated key positions within the United States government, with the cables reporting that many U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto.

The WikiLeaks cable reveals that in late 2007, the United States ambassador to France and business partner to George W. Bush, Craig Stapleton, requested that the European Union along with particular nations that did not support GMO crops be penalized. Stapleton, who co-owned the Dallas/Fort Worth-based Texas Rangers baseball team with Bush in the 1990s, stated:

Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.

The Leaked Political Agenda Behind Monsanto’s GMO Crops

The ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against nations who are against using Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, admittedly linked to organ damage and environmental devastation.

Amazingly, this is not an isolated case. In similar newly released cables, United States diplomats are found to have pushed GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative.
Furthermore, the U.S. specifically targeted advisers to the Pope, due to the fact that many Catholic bishops and figureheads have openly denounced GMO crops. In fact, the Vatican has openly declared Monsanto’s GMO crops as a ‘new form of slavery’.

‘A Martino deputy told us recently that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath – to keep relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach,’ says the cable.

Perhaps the most shocking piece of information exposed by the cables is the fact that these U.S. diplomats are actually working directly for biotech corporations like Monsanto. The cables also highlight the relationship between the U.S. and Spain in their conquest to persuade other nations to allow for the expansion of GMO crops. Not only did the Spanish government secretly correspond with the U.S. government on the subject, but the U.S. government actually knew beforehand how Spain would vote before the Spanish biotech commission reported their decision regarding GMO crops. The cable states:

‘In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain’s science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention.’

Monsanto has undoubtedly infiltrated the United States government in order to push their health-endangering agenda, and this has been known long before the release of these WikiLeaks cables. The U.S. is the only place where Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac is still used in roughly 1/3 of all cows, with 27 nations banning the substance over legitimate health concerns. Despite Monsanto’s best attempts at incognito political corruption, nothing can stop the grassroots anti-Monsanto movement that is taking over cities and nations alike.

Explore More:

Monsanto GMO Seeds Use to Further Expand Within US

WarOnYou — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:42:43 +0000

Monsanto GMO Seeds Use to Further Expand Within US

December 30, 2011

Print Version

By Mike Barrett
Activist Post

While genetically modified foods are continually being banned in other countries, the US is slow to follow the very necessary trend.

The USDA has chosen to step back and give Monsanto even more power over GMO seeds, and now some states are taking similar action.

A bill which could be passed in Lansing, Michigan could make Michigan the 15th state to allow for the expansion of GMO seed use, causing Michigan farms to be plagued with disease-riddled, genetically modified crops.

Calling for the Expansion of GMO Seeds

In order to pave way for the expansion of GMO seeds in Michigan, a slight modification must be made to Sen. Bill 777, which has been in the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism Committee since Septrember 2005. The change seeks to prevent anti-GMO laws, giving biotech corporations even more room to wreak havoc on the environment and humankind alike. The new bill seeks to remove the following:

Any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.

It is interesting to see how some areas encourage the expansion of GMO crops while others, such as Colorado’s Boulder County, recognize the dangers and choose to heed the warnings. Jeff Cobb, legislative aid to GOP Sen. Gerald Van Woekom, the sponsor of the legislation, says that his boss feels local governments don’t have the scientific capacity to determine the safety of GM seeds. The Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Agriculture are the three government entities which have the power to regulate GMO seeds, and Cobb, along with others, feels that local government should not play a role.

The USDA and FDA are Failing to ‘Protect the People’

But if there is any hope for the massive decline of GMO crops, these government entities should be the last to have the power and control. Just recently, the USDA decided to deregulate two of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed varieties, giving the company a further grasp on the food supply of the nation. This is also the same organization that has continually pushed for the approval of genetically modified salmon, which was rejected by Congress due to health concerns. The USDA is so dedicated, in fact, that they decided to help forward the approval of genetically modified salmon by generously funding the cause with nearly $500,000. Not only that, but the organization also illegally approved Monsanto’s GMO sugarbeets, which were to be destroyed some time after.

The FDA is another government entity which doesn’t seem to be doing a great job at protecting the people. The FDA is seeking to outlaw the majority of supplements created after 1994 until they have been heavily proven to be 100% effective and free of any slight side effects. Meanwhile, the organization allows for harmful genetically modified ingredients to fill the world’s food supply. In a similar vein, despite seafood showing extremely high levels of contamination, the FDA decided that the food was still safe for consumption.

Explore More:

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

FDA Won’t Regulate Use of Antibiotics in Healthy Livestock Intended for Human Consumption

WarOnYou — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:26:04 +0000

FDA Won’t Regulate Use of Antibiotics in Healthy Livestock Intended for Human Consumption

December 30th, 2011

Via: Guardian:

Environmental and consumer groups have condemned the US Food and Drug Administration’s move to renege on its long-held policy to regulate the use of human antibiotics in animal feed.

Last week, the agency quietly announced it was withdrawing its plan to limit the use of antibiotics fed to healthy livestock intended for human consumption.

Critics say the U-turn, which comes amid the FDA’s own stated concerns over food safety, is at odds with its obligations to protect the public.

The groups also criticised the timing of the announcement, which was made during the holiday season and disclosed only in the federal register.

The use of low doses of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed contributes to drug-resistant superbugs, according to food and health experts.

One leading food policy writer described the policy reversal as “pathetic” and “dismaying.”

“It’s dismaying, and obviously something they felt sheepish about, otherwise it wouldn’t have been released this week,” Michael Pollan, author of the Onmivore’s Dilemma and Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual, told the Guardian.

“When Margaret Hamburg became the head of the FDA, she indicated this was a high priority for them and that she realised how much of a problem the profligate use of antibiotics was. She said she was going to treat this issue as if her hair was on fire. This isn’t the way someone acts when their hair is on fire.”

Pollan said there was “no question” that meat could be produced without human antibiotics, as the EU has already banned them.

The FDA first acknowledged in 1977 that the overuse of antibiotics in healthy livestock for growth promotion and disease prevention was unsafe and could promote antibiotic resistant bacteria that could infect people. An advisory committee at the time recommended that the FDA immediately withdraw approval for two drugs, penicillin and tetracycline, for subtherapeutic uses of the drugs in livestock.

Last week, in a statement in the Federal Register, the FDA says it plans instead to allow the industry to self-regulate and “focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health”.

The problem, said Pollan, boils down to a lack of political will in the face of powerful industry interests. “There’s a lot of corporate money in politics these days,” he said. “Here you’re going up against not just one powerful industry, but two. This administration has had enough trouble going after individual powerful industries. That they would prevail against two of them joined together was too much to hope for.”

Livestock consume about 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US.

News: FDA Won’t Act Against Ag Antibiotic Use

WarOnYou — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:13:45 +0000

News: FDA Won’t Act Against Ag Antibiotic Use

December 26, 2011

Print Version

Source: Wired

With no notice other than a holiday-eve posting in the Federal Register, the US Food and Drug Administration has reneged on its long-stated intention to compel large-scale agriculture to curb over-use of agricultural antibiotics, which it had planned to do by reversing its approval for putting penicillin and tetracyclines in feed.

How long-stated? The FDA first announced its intention to withdraw those approvals in 1977.

From the official posting:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is withdrawing two 1977 notices of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH), which proposed to withdraw certain approved uses of penicillin and tetracyclines intended for use in feeds for food-producing animals based in part on microbial food safety concerns.¹ … (¹FDA’s approval to withdraw the approved uses of the drugs was based on three statutory grounds: (1) The drugs are not shown to be safe (21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(1)(B)); (2) lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness (21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(1)(C)); and (3) failure to submit required reports (21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(2)(A)).)

There is a lot of background to this, but here is the takeaway: For 34 years, the FDA has been contending that administering small doses of antibiotics to healthy animals is an inappropriate use of increasingly scarce drugs — a position in which it is supported by organizations as mainstream as the American Medical Association. With this withdrawal, it backs away from the actions it took to support that assertion — which may indicate there will be no further government action on the issue until after the 2012 election.

In the Federal Register, the FDA says that it plans instead to “focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health.” That’s a reference to a draft guidance that the FDA put forward in the summer of 2010, which proposes that large-scale agriculture voluntarily stop using those “subtherapeutic” small doses, and also stop giving any antibiotic doses to animals unless veterinarians prescribe them.

Two things to note there: After 18 months, the guidance is still in draft, and has never been finalized; and even in draft, the industry opposes it, calling into question the likelihood of “voluntary” adherence if it were to become final. One example, from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, when the draft was first put forward:

Merry Monsanto — Military Industrial Agriculture

WarOnYou — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:07:52 +0000

Merry Monsanto — Military Industrial Agriculture

December 24, 2011

Print Version

Owen Myles, Contributing Writer

Activist Post

Today I read an article on slashdot titled “New Study Confirms Safety of GM Crops“. Before you navigate away from this article, please be assured they were not citing the National Enquirer. The study was conducted in France, with assistance from the usual suspects (British universities, biotechnology corporations, etc).

Also involved in the study were rodents — clearly a dietary staple of the French, and biologically (or psychologically?) identical to certain English academics.

The “evidence” cited in the study shows that — at least to monocled marsupials — GM plants are “nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.” Of course “food and feed” are not exclusive aspects of GM agriculture — or even agriculture — but corporate-sponsored research has its own perspective . . . Never mind the trace minerals and everything else!

As usual, the slashdot comments were many, and the views varied; organic versus conventional, ridicule and support of both, with lots between — all shedding light on people’s views of the subject. Admittedly, geeks may not be the best authority on such topics — often compiled of pizza and soft-drinks — but I fear they do provide an example of popular opinion regardless. Many see GM as a noble science, helping to feed the world’s growing population. Some see “organic” anthropocentrically, reducing it to a matter of pesticides, nutrition, and prices. Few seem to have a balanced perspective though.

Conventional versus organic agriculture – or where to begin:

Crop rotation gets little attention, probably due to most consumers having no familiarity with processes behind the supermarkets. Most GM crops are mono-cultures, and are rarely if ever rotated. Mono-cultures reduce biodiversity, having effects far beyond the farm, and unrotated crops stress and deplete the soil. While the terribly important subject of biodiversity is generally ignored in conventional agriculture, soil quality is maintained artificially through mined fertilizers and industrial chemicals. There are quite a few implications for this; the dust-bowl of the US, and creeping deserts of China are but a few. Artificial fertilization requires strip mining, particularly for phosphates, and the effects are harsh. Pollution of watersheds, eutrophication, devastation, and even radiation are effects of phosphate mining.

In 2003, Piney Point phosphate mine threatened to leak a hundred-plus million gallons of contaminated water into Tampa Bay. Instead of allowing it to leak, Jeb Bush authorized it to be dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. I clearly remember suffering perennial red-tide for more than a year after the first incident. In June of 2011, Piney Point threatened to leak again.

Piney Point was officially an “accident”; possibly one less expensive to pay the fines for, than to build a more secure infrastructure. But conventional agriculture is not an accident, and a look at the Mississippi Delta dead-zone is an example some of the consequences involved in run-off from fertilization.

We’ve all heard horror stories of cattle threatening to fart our beloved planet into a toxic stink-osphere. …Sure, but what they leave out is that it is not just farts, but mismanagement of the manure which produces much of this dangerous surplus of methane. Instead of properly redistributing the manure to be returned to the soil, it is often stuffed in squalid vats to putrefy without benefit — emitting methane. Could such manure not substitute these mined phosphates to some extent?

The argument that to feed the growing population we must genetically modify our crops and practice industrial agriculture is worth some attention, as it is perhaps the most popular argument supporting the industry. This argument confuses many, and irritates some like myself. One must at a minimum, consider the waste of conventional agriculture, where rather than composting and returning detritus to the soil, it is either burned, trashed, or used for other industrial purposes. Organic agriculture it is not entirely self-sufficient, but it is far more so than its contestant. Between hydroponics and more – but smaller – farms, organic (and perhaps eco-farming) could indeed maintain pace with the demands of our growing population — all while remaining far more symbiotic with ecosystems.

The French study also neglects aspects of what they claim to understand of feed. Bees are critical to agriculture, and certainly are not well hosted by conventional farms. Some studies have suggested that GM corn pollen may weaken the intestinal walls of bees, thus reducing resistance to parasites and other infections.

We know that feeding corn — as opposed to grass — to cattle increases putrefaction due to excessive starches (sugars), further leading farmers to grotesque measures; boring permanent holes into the stomachs of cows to monitor the bacterial cultures that arise from corn diets of GMO-powered starchiness, and the excessive antibiotics which become necessary as result of the intestinal imbalances caused by such diets. In humans, GM soy has been proposed to threaten intestinal flora as well, by transferring corrupted DNA into beneficial flora.

Patent-wars are another issue, and could alone make a strong case against GMOs. Whether through cross-pollination (contamination) or terminator seeds, the patent has been used to harm many farmers and sustain what would otherwise fail under fair and wholesome circumstances. Organic farming claims no ownership of nature; it seeks to work in relative harmony, and cares not to bully fellow farmers. The notorious Monsanto has been a true tyrant in this regard, litigating farmers into bankruptcy, and playing dice with biology. It is no secret that the FDA and Monsanto are close, and that neither exhibit any sincere concern for the health of the masses. They present GM science as the road to a thriving humanity, but their real motives are clearly profit — without regard to humanity’s common interests.

We also need to bring agriculture closer to home, whereever possible. By this I imply less dependence on centralized farming, and more local cooperation. The supermarket shelves can be emptied, but our yards are alive, and our greenhouses belong to us. We should be teaching ourselves the basics of growing what we can in our climates, and becoming less reliant on those who care neither about their own produce, animals, or us. Where this cannot be done, one may try to act supportively instead, whether in words or coins.

What seems objectively obvious to me is that GMOs are understudied, abused, resented by many, and will have to wait in a very long line for any truly conclusive research. Organic agriculture, however, is tried and proven — and no one resents its products. I know from experience the differences of that grown on the local farm here in Sarasota, compared to that bought in any grocery store — and they are quite apparent; from the way I feel after enjoying them, to the politics — or lack thereof — that are involved. I know of no organic farm sporting prison labor, but I can surely name a few conventional farms that do. I don’t want an institution supper, nor do I want corporate mutations in my mouth. The differences are clear, and it’s a shame that they even need be argued — but ’tis our times and tyrants.

There is much, much more to cover on this subject, though I wanted to get this out in time to wish the Activist Post readership (and syndicates) a Merry Christmas for all those who celebrate it, and the kindness of the holiday spirit to everyone, which will hopefully some day no longer be once per year.
Map of Florida’s Bone Valley: www.baysoundings.com/sum05/BoneValley.pdfOwen Myles writes and edits the Eccentric Intelligence Agency: Helping the Ouroboros finish itself.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

WarOnYou — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:58:28 +0000

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

December 16, 2011

Print Version

By Mike Barrett
Activist Post

It seems that the good bacteria found in your gut may actually be destroyed with every bite of certain food that you eat.

While antibiotics typically hold first prize in depleting the body’s gut flora levels, there may be a new culprit looking to take the spotlight which you may know as genetically modified food.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Decreased Gut Flora

A formula seems to have been made to not only ruin the agricultural system, but also compromise the health of millions of people worldwide.

With the advent of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, resistant superweeds are taking over farmland and public health is being attacked. These genetically engineered crops are created to withstand large amounts of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup. As it turns out, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is actually leaving behind its residue on Roundup Ready crops, causing further potential concern for public health.

According to Dr. Don Huber, an expert in certain science fields relating to genetically modified foods, the amount of good bacteria in the gut decreases with the consumption of GMO foods. But this outcome is actually due to the residual glyphosate in animal feed and food.

Dr. Huber states that glyphosate residues in genetically engineered plants are responsible for a significant reduction in mineral content, causing people to be highly susceptible to pathogens.

Although studies have previously found that the beneficial bacteria in animals is destroyed thanks to glyphosate, a stronger connection will need to be made regarding human health for this kind of information to stick.

Poor Gut Flora Means Poor Health

As awareness grows, more and more people are realizing that poor gut flora often means poor health. Without the proper ratio of good bacteria to bad bacteria, overall health suffers and you could be left feeling depressed. In fact, poor gut health has been directly tied to mental illness,which may explain the influx of people being diagnosed with a mental illness. Not only that, butobesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome have all been tied to poor gut health.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

WarOnYou — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:13:29 +0000

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

December 16, 2011

Print Version

By Mike Barrett
Activist Post

It seems that the good bacteria found in your gut may actually be destroyed with every bite of certain food that you eat.

While antibiotics typically hold first prize in depleting the body’s gut flora levels, there may be a new culprit looking to take the spotlight which you may know as genetically modified food.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Decreased Gut Flora

Dr. Huber states that glyphosate residues in genetically engineered plants are responsible for a significant reduction in mineral content, causing people to be highly susceptible to pathogens.

Poor Gut Flora Means Poor Health

Genetically Modified Salmon Approval Pushed by USDA with Nearly $500,000 Funding

WarOnYou — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:02:51 +0000

Genetically Modified Salmon Approval Pushed by USDA with Nearly $500,000 Funding

November 14, 2011

Print Version

By Mike Barrett
Activist Post

In September of 2010, a new genetically modified animal hybrid sparked mass concern as well as nationwide controversy.

The possibility of having genetically modified salmon for dinner did not sit well with many independent scientists, consumer groups, environmental organizations, and especially the healthy consumer.

Although the genetically modified salmon, commonly referred to as “frankenfish”, has not yet been approved for consumption, it seems that certain US organizations are determined to place the fish on your plate.

Frankenfish: Funded by the USDA

It wasn’t until 2010, when the House of Representatives got involved with the approval of genetically modified salmon, was Aquabounty hit with severe critical opposition. When Aquabounty’s genetically modified salmon was in effect struck down by the House, the company was unable to receive funds from the Food and Drug Administration in order to move forward with the approval. Despite the decision made by the House, the United States Department of Agriculture recently decided to help Aquabounty’s quest for the approval of genetically modified salmon by generously funding their cause with nearly $500,000.

One can only wonder why an organization like the USDA would fund research to help the frankenfish’s approval while one part of the legislative branch of government shoots it down. The question is, what could possibly cause the USDA to fund Aquabounty while there is so much controversy surrounding the salmon on a government level? Why would the USDA, an organization which stamps organic products with their seal to indicate no use of genetic modification, give money to a company to research and ultimately sell genetically modified salmon? The answers are unclear, but the actions exhibited by the USDA could very well reflect the personal goals of the members. Perhaps USDA members could have vested interest in the approval of genetically modified fish.

It may not be long until you find unlabeled genetically modified fish on your dinner plate. With Aquabounty receiving a very generous sum of money from the USDA, who knows the time it will take for them to conduct (or perhaps manipulate) the necessary research for their frankenfish to attain approval.

Explore More:

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

In-Vitro Meat

WarOnYou — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:59:16 +0000

In-Vitro Meat

November 14th, 2011

Via: Reuters:

Scientists are cooking up new ways of satisfying the world’s ever-growing hunger for meat.

“Cultured meat” — burgers or sausages grown in laboratory Petri dishes rather than made from slaughtered livestock — could be the answer that feeds the world, saves the environment and spares the lives of millions of animals, they say.

Granted, it may take a while to catch on. And it won’t be cheap.

…

Using stem cells harvested from leftover animal material from slaughterhouses, Post nurtures them with a feed concocted of sugars, amino acids, lipids, minerals and all other nutrients they need to grow in the right way.

So far he has produced whitish pale muscle-like strips, each of them around 2.5 cm (1 inch) long, less than a centimeter wide and so thin as to be almost see-through.

Pack enough of these together — probably around 3,000 of them in layers — throw in a few strips of lab-grown fat, and you have the world’s first “cultured meat” burger, he says.

“This first one will be grown in an academic lab, by highly trained academic staff,” he said. “It’s hand-made and it’s time and labor-intensive, that’s why it’s so expensive to produce.”

Not to mention a little unappetizing. Since Post’s in-vitro meat contains no blood, it lacks color. At the moment, it looks a bit like the flesh of scallops, he says.

Like all muscle, these lab-grown strips also need to be exercised so they can grow and strengthen rather than waste away. To do this Post exploits the muscles’ natural tendency to contract and stretches them between Velcro tabs in the Petri dish to provide resistance and help them build up strength.

Obama administration ‘bailed out’ GM salmon firm

WarOnYou — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:35:30 +0000

Obama administration ‘bailed out’ GM salmon firm

October 19, 2011

Print Version

Source: Guardian UK

The Obama administration awarded a coveted research grant to a financially strapped company working to put genetically modified (GM) salmon on American dinner tables, overlooking disclosures that the firm could run out of cash in early 2012, it has emerged.

Campaigners say the $500,000 grant to AquaBounty amounts to a bail-out for the firm’s main investor, the business tycoon and former economics minister of Georgia, Kakha Bendukidze. They are also comparing it to the Solyndra controversy, which saw a solar company go bankrupt after receiving government loan guarantees.

“Certainly this does have shades of Solyndra. We have seen this company’s stock plummeting for months and months – years actually – and what does the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) do but give this company money?”, said Colin O’Neil, a policy analyst at the Centre for Food Safety, which opposes GM salmon.

“This is research that any public university or independent institution could be doing, so why is the USDA funding this interested company to do it?” he said.

The grant, awarded last month, comes at a critical juncture for AquaBounty.

After $67m and 16 years’ waiting, the Food and Drug Administration could pronounce GM salmon fit for human consumption within weeks, the company’s chief executive, Ronald Stotish, said.

Read Full Article Here…

Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Results of a 30 Year Study

WarOnYou — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:48:27 +0000

Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Results of a 30 Year Study

October 17th, 2011

Via: Rodale Institute:

Organic yields match conventional yields.

Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.

Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.

Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

—

The hallmark of a truly sustainable system is its ability to regenerate itself. When it comes to farming, the key to sustainable agriculture is healthy soil, since this is the foundation for present and future growth.

Organic farming is far superior to conventional systems when it comes to building, maintaining and replenishing the health of the soil. For soil health alone, organic agriculture is more sustainable than conventional. When one also considers yields, economic viability, energy usage, and human health, it’s clear that organic farming is sustainable, while current conventional practices are not.

As we face uncertain and extreme weather patterns, growing scarcity and expense of oil, lack of water, and a growing population, we will require farming systems that can adapt, withstand or even mitigate these problems while producing healthy, nourishing food. After 30 years of side-by-side research in our Farming Systems Trial (FST), Rodale Institute has demonstrated that organic farming is better equipped to feed us now and well into the ever changing future.

‘No Food Rights’ Judge Quits to Work for Monsanto Law Firm

WarOnYou — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:23:22 +0000

‘No Food Rights’ Judge Quits to Work for Monsanto Law Firm

October 13th, 2011

There ought to be a RICO investigation into that f*cker.

Via: Food Freedom:

The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.

Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.

Millions of Bees Mysteriously Die in Florida

WarOnYou — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:30:29 +0000

Millions of Bees Mysteriously Die in Florida

October 2, 2011

Print Version

Source: CBS

Florida officials are abuzz as to how millions of honey bees were killed in Brevard County.

Several beekeepers in the county have reported lost colonies this week. Charles Smith of Smith Family Honey Company told Stuart News Thursday he lost 400 beehives. He says the bees appeared to have been poisoned.

“I’ll never get completely compensated for this unless someone handed me 400 beehives,” Smith told Stuart News. “I lost the bees, the ability to make honey and the ability to sell the bees.”

Smith told Florida Today that he lost $150,000 from the incident.

State officials are testing the bees to determine what type of chemicals contributed to their deaths.

Experts say pesticides might be behind the lost beehives.

“The fact that it was so widespread and so rapid, I think you can pretty much rule out disease,” Bill Kern, an entomologist with the University of Florida’s Research and Education Center, told Florida Today. “It happened essentially almost in one day. Usually diseases affect adults or the brood, you don’t have something that kills them both.”

Read Full Article Here…

Nestle wants you to be scared of organic food

WarOnYou — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 01:35:45 +0000

Nestle wants you to be scared of organic food

September 2, 2011

Print Version

Source: Grist

Organic isn’t better for you? Give us a break, Nestlé.Photo: Howard Lake Tom Laskawy

In eye-opening comments to Fast Companythis weekend, Nestlé’s chairman and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe offers a lengthy disquisition on the “problems” associated with organic foods and covers all the classic anti-organic arguments, from “organic can’t feed the world” to “organic isn’t any better for you.” He concludes by declaring that organic food sales in the U.S. and Europe have likely hit their peak. “I don’t think it will grow much more,” he adds.

To a large extent, this is a guy talking his book, as the financial types say. In the article, Fast Company observes that Nestlé “has made acquisitions of several premium brands that organic-loving people tend to buy: San Pellegrino water, PowerBar energy bars, and Skinny Cow ice cream.” However, none of those brands are organic. And a quick glance at the organic industry structure shows us that Nestlé is barely involved. They don’t own a significant stake in a single major organic brand, despite that fact that their closest candy competitors have all done so (Hershey owns Dagoba and Cadbury owns Green and Black’s).

It’s discouraging, if not surprising, to see the old “organic can’t feed the world” canard gracing the pages of another well-intentioned media outlet. But Brabeck-Letmathe isn’t content to rehash that tired trope. To heighten his argument, Brabeck-Letmathe also drags out the ancient claim that organic foods cause “30 to 40 deaths per year” in consumers due to improper use of manure in organic production. Over on Civil Eats, Anna Lappé has done a thorough job of documenting the long history of this false claim — going back to a retracted 20/20 news report from a decade ago. She also cleverly points to the fact that Brabeck-Letmathe has been giving essentially this same interview for years.

It’s clear that Brabeck-Letmathe has multiple reasons for attacking organics. For one, his prediction about a plateau in the rise of organic sales rings hollow if you’ve been paying attention; from 2009 to 2010 (arguably the depths of the current recession) organics went up 7.7 percent. But whole, organic, and unprocessed foods don’t only represent a direct threat to Nestlé’s sales, they threaten its new business lines.

Read Full Article Here…

War On You: Breaking Alternative News » GMO

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

Related Posts:

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

Related Posts:

Monsanto GMO Seeds Use to Further Expand Within US

Monsanto GMO Seeds Use to Further Expand Within US

Related Posts:

FDA Won’t Regulate Use of Antibiotics in Healthy Livestock Intended for Human Consumption

FDA Won’t Regulate Use of Antibiotics in Healthy Livestock Intended for Human Consumption

Related Posts:

News: FDA Won’t Act Against Ag Antibiotic Use

News: FDA Won’t Act Against Ag Antibiotic Use

Related Posts:

Merry Monsanto — Military Industrial Agriculture

Merry Monsanto — Military Industrial Agriculture

Related Posts:

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Related Posts:

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Related Posts:

Genetically Modified Salmon Approval Pushed by USDA with Nearly $500,000 Funding

Genetically Modified Salmon Approval Pushed by USDA with Nearly $500,000 Funding

Related Posts:

In-Vitro Meat

In-Vitro Meat

Related Posts:

Obama administration ‘bailed out’ GM salmon firm

Obama administration ‘bailed out’ GM salmon firm

Related Posts:

Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Results of a 30 Year Study

Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Results of a 30 Year Study

Related Posts:

‘No Food Rights’ Judge Quits to Work for Monsanto Law Firm

‘No Food Rights’ Judge Quits to Work for Monsanto Law Firm

Related Posts:

Millions of Bees Mysteriously Die in Florida

Millions of Bees Mysteriously Die in Florida

Related Posts:

Nestle wants you to be scared of organic food

Nestle wants you to be scared of organic food

Related Posts: