Sometimes hearing and reading about how organic food surpasses conventional food in quality just isn’t enough. Even with all of the information available, some people still aren’t convinced that there is actually a difference between organic and conventional foods. In a simple yet very informative presentation, a young lady named Elise provides a visual example of how organic food rises above conventional.

How Organic Surpasses Conventional Food - Common Pesticide Hinders Growth of Potatoes, Crops

What Elise discovered was that the conventional potatoes are sprayed with a pesticide called bud nip, also known as chlorpropham. The chemical is also sprayed on blueberries, carrots, spinach, onions, tomatoes, beets, and cranberries. According to Pesticide Management Education Program:

Chlorpropham is moderately toxic by ingestion. It may cause irritation of the eyes or skin. Symptoms of poisoning in laboratory animals have included listlessness, incoordination, nose bleeds, protruding eyes, bloody tears, difficulty in breathing, prostration, inability to urinate, high fevers, and death. Autopsies of animals have shown inflammation of the stomach and intestinal lining, congestion of the brain, lungs and other organs, and degenerative changes in the kidneys and liver

Needless to say, it isn’t a good idea to ingest any pesticides at all. These are harmful chemicals that are comprising the health of animals humans, and insects – helping lead to the downfall of our ecosystem by poisoning honeybees, crucial pollinators. Pesticides have also been found to be contributing to the obesity crisis currently sweeping the globe.

So there is the question: Which potato would you want to eat?

With rates of obesity, diabetes, and nearly every other major health problem rising each year, why has the United States decided to heavily subsidize junk food? Farmers around the country choosing to grow healthy crops like chard, broccoli, and spinach simply do not have the government funding that those growing massive amounts of corn and soy beans (of which above 90% of each are genetically modified) do. Does the U.S. government really think that fruits and vegetables are not as important as grains which are used mostly for processing harmful food items? It may be time for a policy change.

Unhealthy Food Subsidization is Ruining Our Health

Between 1995 and 2010 over $260 billion was spent by American taxpayers in agricultural subsidies. Most of that money is put into commodity crops such as corn and soybeans, but the money is far less than well spent. While corn alone took in a whopping $77.1 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010, taxpayers spent $262 million subsidizing apples during the same time period. It just so happens that apples are really the only significant federal subsidy of fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact, if these agricultural subsidies went directly to consumers for the purchase of food, America’s 144 million taxpayers would each be given $7.36 to spend on junk food and only 11 cents to buy apples each year. This equates to about 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of one healthy apple.

The U.S. government continues to be a major player in the national food business, with subsidies continuing to grow. The worst part is that the crops being subsidized are almost always genetically modified and pose a health risk to the environment and humankind.

Corn may be the crop utilized most poorly in the country. The corn being produced is actually specifically created for purposes of adding certain ingredients (many of which are toxic) into the food supply. One such ingredient is high fructose corn syrup, which has been found to contain mercury and cause cancer, and resides in many products such as ketchup, cereals, and beverages. Shockingly, it has nearly replaced sugar in all sodas and soft drinks.

Then there is corn starch, corn gluten meal, hydrolyzed corn protein, and corn syrup which can all be found in snacks like cookies. Lastly, corn is used to feed conventionally-fed animals to prompt weight gain and hasten their slaughter weight. Unfortunately, these animals’ digestive systems are not meant to digest corn, causing the animals to be fed antibiotics.

In addition to corn lies soybeans, another crop heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. Today, the U.S. produces at least 75% of all soybeans grown worldwide, with an increase of about 10 million acres produced between 2007 and 2011. Total subsidies for soybeans between 1995 and 2010 totaled $24.3 billion, making it 3rd on the list of top products subsidized. Unfortunately this heavily subsidized crop is no less genetically modified than corn, with nearly 93% of US soybeans being genetically modified in order to resist powerful weed-killers.

These genetically modified crops pushed by the government are said to reduce pesticide usage and be completely safe according to U.S. government agencies. But more than enough evidence has shown these touted benefits to be false claims, and the heavily subsidized, genetically modified junk food pushed on the population has only been shown to be a threat to your health.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recently found that Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which was created to kill insects, may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms. The genetically modified corn has been engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), an insecticide harnessing an insect-killing protein.

The EPA found that the resistant rootworms, which are evolving to resist the insecticide,  are currently found Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. After the EPA evaluated documented cases of severe crop damage as well as reports from entomologists, the EPA stated “Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is ‘inadequate’”.

This of course is not the first time that genetically modified crops have led to insect populations that are resistant to the biopesticides contained in the crops. As this problem of resistance continues to occur, the amount of insecticides needed to be used soars. As insects adapt to the genetically modified Bt, the biopesticide becomes absolutely worthless, igniting a vicious cycle of further genetic alteration and increased pesticide/herbicide use.

In a similar vein of resistance, it has recently been reported that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup has created a new category of resistant superweeds. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010.

Monsanto managed to rake in $11.8 billion in sales during the fiscal year ended Aug 31, and it is no wonder why. Not only does the company make incredible profit off of its top-selling products sold to farmers nationwide, but 41 percent of that profit is completely driven by their genetically modified corn. Of course it can’t be too difficult to rake in that kind of money from GM corn when the crop is heavily subsidized by the government.

On the other hand, organic and sustainable farming practices do not require endless amounts of genetic modification, heavy pesticide use, and aren’t subject to the negative health effects that go along with conventional farming. This kind of sustainable and health-promoting farming is what activists and environmentalists have been pushing for years. It seems that when Monsanto isn’t involved, farming becomes much simpler, healthy, and environmentally friendly.

The United States federal government paid American farmers $12.3 billion in 2009 to boost crop production. While this number may seem high, it is actually nearly the lowest amount paid to farmers in the past 10 years. The reason farmers are paid to grow certain crops is to ensure that they grow more for the country while at the same time making the same amount of money. What some people aren’t completely aware of is the huge impact that the subsidies have on what ends up on our plate – in plain sight or otherwise. Corn alone took in a whopping $77.1 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010. The U.S. government continues to be a major player in the national food business, with subsidies continuing to grow. Here are the top 9 food products that the government most heavily subsidizes:

Corn

Corn easily rests at the top of the list of government sponsored foods. Between 1995 and 2010, $77.1 billion was given to farmers so that they could grow massive amounts of corn. But oddly enough, most of the corn grown isn’t corn on the cob. The corn produced is actually specifically created for purposes of adding certain ingredients in the food. One such ingredient is high fructose corn syrup, which has been found to contain mercury and cause cancer, resides in many products such as ketchup, cereals, and beverages. It has nearly replaced sugar in all sodas and soft drinks. Then there is corn starch, corn gluten meal, hydrolyzed corn protein, and corn syrup which can all be found in snacks like cookies. Lastly, corn is used to feed conventionally-fed animals to prompt weight gain and hasten their slaughter weight. Unfortunately, these animals’ digestive systems are not meant to digest corn, causing the animals to be fed antibiotics.

What’s frightening is that most of the corn that is produced isn’t even edible! The commodity, corn, is produced with government backing for one primary reason – to be processed. The corn is simply a raw material meant to be transformed into the harmful ingredients we’ve come to consume so often today.

The argument for so much subsidization is to help the US compete internationally, but most of the corn being processed is used domestically. What the government is really subsidizing, is obesity and tons of other health complications within the nation. The truth is that many of the products we buy possesses some type of processed corn. Corn is even consumed when eating meat, as the animals are force-fed genetically modified corn. All of the subsidizing set in place by the system is ultimately contributing to the downfall of our food quality as we know it. It does of course, make costs for businesses cheaper.

Wheat

The total subsidies for wheat between 1995 and 2010 was $32.4 billion – the second most subsidized crop. Both wheat demand and prices have skyrocketed in recent years. While wheat always used to be plentiful, wheat stockpiles have fallen to a new low in 2008 which haven’t been seen since 1948. Even with farmers experiencing a wheat shortage due to high demand, subsidies continue. It seems to be much easier to add subsidies than to remove them due to congress decision making processes.

Soybeans

Soybeans, like corn, are also almost always genetically modified. It wasn’t until  the last couple decades that the U.S. had such a large role in soy production. Today, the U.S. produces at least 75% of all soybeans grown worldwide, with an increase of about 10 million acres produced between 2007 and 2011. Total subsidies for soybeans between 1995 and 2010 totaled $24.3 billion, making it 3rd on the list of top products subsidized.

Other foods the United States government is paying you to eat.

• Rice

• Beer

• Milk

• Beef

• Peanut Butter

• Sunflower Oil

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And that is exactly how the biotechnology industry and government agencies are trying to handle the escalating “superweed” epidemic.

According to a recent report out of Washington University (WU) in St. Louis, Mo., the chemical industry’s answer to genetically-modified (GM) induced superweeds is to now tamper with the genetics of the superweeds themselves, which may appear to provide a quick fix, but will eventually spur an even worse breed of “super superweeds.”

Superweeds, of course, are the byproduct of genetically-engineered (GE) crops that have been programmed to resist certain pesticides and herbicides. Use of these chemicals has increased as a result, and the weeds they were designed to kill have over time developed a resistance to them as well, having mutated into what we now know as superweeds (http://www.naturalnews.com/weeds.html).

But instead of recognizing the problem as having stemmed from GE technology in the first place, purveyors of GMOs are now looking at ways to genetically modify superweeds. This insane notion will most likely not even work, but even worse is the fact that it is sure to exacerbate the problem even further to the point that there will eventually be no way to control ever-mutating stocks of “Frankenweeds.”

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032777_superweeds_biotech.html#ixzz1iAu9ICdo

Dr. Mercola
Mercola
June 21, 2011

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has approved $20 million in new monies toward the development of “golden rice” — an untested, highly controversial GE (genetically engineered) crop that threatens biodiversity and risks bringing economic and ecological disaster to Asia’s farms.

The leader of the Golden Rice project is Gerald Barry, previously director of research at Monsanto.

Sarojeni V. Rengam, executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), has called the rice a “Trojan horse.” According to Rengam, the rice is “… a public relations stunt pulled by the agri-business corporations to garner acceptance of GE crops and food. The whole idea of GE seeds is to make money.”

Food Freedom reports:

“Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project.”

In Thailand at least, however, a little known and unpublicized agricultural policy protects Thai rice from the risks of GMO’s. The Thai Ministry of Agriculture’s “Rice Strategy” is a master plan committed to strengthening the nation’s rice production while promoting farmers’ livelihoods and consumer confidence — which includes keeping Thai rice GMO (genetically modified organism)-free.

Adding to the risks of GE crops is Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s best-selling herbicide that is made to be partnered with GE Roundup Ready crops. According to a new report, regulators have known for years that Roundup causes birth defects.

Regulators were apparently aware as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety.

According to the Huffington Post:

“… [A]s recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects …

Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.”

Golden rice is a strain of rice genetically modified to produce beta-carotene, which your body converts to vitamin A. It has been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don’t have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.

It sounds like a plausible theory, and the push to cultivate golden rice in Asia has been promoted as a noble cause that has gathered the support of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — in the form of $20 million toward development.

But it doesn’t take much digging beneath the surface to uncover the true motives of the corporations seeking to plant golden rice in the developing world, and they have much more to do with dollars and cents than they do with alleviating nutritional deficiencies. In fact, there’s reason to believe that genetically modified (GM) golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor — and may actually make vitamin A deficiency (VAD) worse.

Golden Rice is Not a Viable Source of Vitamin A

Your body can convert beta-carotene into vitamin A, which is an essential nutrient your body needs for healthy eyesight and warding off viral infections. But, your body can only perform this conversion under certain conditions. Specifically, beta-carotene is fat-soluble, which means dietary fat is required for your body to convert it into vitamin A. But many people in developing countries eat very low-fat diets, as they simply do not have access to animal foods or other fat sources very often.

In fact, it has been suggested that malnourished people might not convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, which blows the usefulness of golden rice clearly out of the water, as its intended recipients are virtually guaranteed to be malnourished.

Further, you would need to eat an unrealistic amount of rice each day — upwards of 16 pounds a day– to get the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in this golden rice case study from Iowa State University:

“Even if golden rice is successfully introduced … a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A child would need 12 lbs.

More realistically, three servings of 1/2 lb. cooked golden rice per day would provide only 10% of her daily Vitamin A requirement, and less than 6% if she were breast-feeding. Yet even these modest contributions are uncertain. In order to absorb beta carotene, the human body requires adequate amounts of zinc, protein and fats, elements often lacking in the diets of poor people.

Those with diarrhea – common in developing countries – are also unable to obtain vitamin A from golden rice.”

Golden Rice May Cause Vitamin A Deficiency by Thwarting Biodiversity

What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A is access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale.

As written in a Pesticide Action Network Asia & the Pacific (PANAP) press release:

” … it has to be emphasized that fat intake is the basic prerequisite for the absorption and utilization of beta carotene which, like Vitamin A, is fat but not water soluble, while proteins and Vitamin D enhance absorption of it. Unfortunately, the diets of families in communities where vitamin A deficiency is endemic have low fat content—mainly because they are poor and do not have access to a sufficient amount as well as a diverse enough range of food.

… In a biodiverse farm, a family would have easy access to all these [beta carotene and vitamin-A-rich foods]. But the mono-cropping agricultural technology, promoted through IRRI’s [International Rice Research Institute] Green Revolution, has to a large extent, destroyed dietary biodiversity in rural Asia, which is the main cause of malnutrition.

This has seriously aggravated VAD. In fact, the Green Revolution has caused the loss of thousands of diverse local rice varieties, which were replaced first by IRRI’s so-called ‘high yielding varieties’ and then by hybrid varieties. Many of these local varieties had special nutritional value. Golden Rice perpetuates the industrial model of agriculture and so instead of reducing VAD, it will actually contribute to worsening its rate of occurrence.”

Former Monsanto Director Leading the Golden Rice Initiative

The leader of IRRI’s Golden Rice project is Gerald Barry, the previous director of research at Monsanto. In case you are not familiar with Monsanto, they are the world leader in genetically modified crops and they have been aggressively trying to plant their seeds in nations around the world for some time now.

As reported by Netline, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to inject genetically modified crops into Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years.

In a previous Huffington Post article, Eric Holt Gimenez sums it up nicely:

“Under the guise of “sustainability” the [Gates] Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform Africa into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project.”

It would be naive at this point to think that these collaborations are designed to solve any other problem than how to help Monsanto monopolize the world’s food supply with expensive GM seeds that have to be purchased each year and require expensive chemical treatment.

Asia is simply the next region on the roster, and this is precisely why Food Freedom called golden rice a “Trojan horse for introducing GM crops around the world:

“Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops.”

The alarming part is, Monsanto is apparently seeking to monopolize the world’s food supply with its toxic GM crops — and already we are beginning to see the ramifications of this dangerous approach to farming.

Regulators Knew World’s Best-Selling Herbicide Could Cause Birth Defects

A new report from Earth Open Source has revealed that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide not only causes birth defects, but industry regulators have known this for years and did nothing about it. After reviewing industry studies and regulatory documents used to approve Roundup, they noted:

• Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
• Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
• The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 — and the EU Commission has known since 2002 – that glyphosate causes malformations

Residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed have also been linked to cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. Researchers have also found it causes membrane and DNA damage, and inhibits cell respiration.

Glyphosate is the world’s bestselling weed killer, and it’s found in more than 30 percent of all herbicides. While Roundup Ready crops can withstand the toxin because of GM genetic material from viruses and bacteria, the weed killer is thought to be contributing to Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a deadly plant disease that causes plants to turn yellow and die.

As reported by GM expert Jeffrey Smith, numerous studies have linked glyphosate to increases in SDS, including in crops that have never been sprayed with the herbicide but were planted in a field that received an application the previous season.

The use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced. In the first 13 years, American farmers sprayed an additional 383 million pounds of herbicide due to these herbicide-tolerant crops. The repeated exposures have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her comeback, not only in the form of SDS, but also in the form of devastating superweeds.

Despite all of these glaring red flags, nothing is being done to remove this toxin from the market. As Earth Open Source reported:

“All of these concerns could be addressed by an objective review of Roundup and glyphosate … just such a review was due to take place in 201. However, shortly after the Commission was notified of the latest research showing that glyphosate and Roundup causes birth defects, it quietly passed a directive delaying the review until 2015 …

But in reality, the Commission’s slowness in preparing the new data requirements for the incoming regulation mean that glyphosate may well not be re-assessed in the light of up-to-date science until 2030. The beneficiary will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.”

Why is Bill Gates Supporting Monsanto’s GM Crops?

Gates has tried to keep his ties to genetically modified seeds on the down-low, but the issue got major attention last year when Monsanto tried to inject its hybrid seeds into Haiti after a massive earthquake devastated the island. Fortunately, the Haitian farmers were too smart to fall for this devious scheme. Farmer groups criticized the Gates Foundation’s involvement, committed to burning the GM seed, and called for a march to protest Monsanto’s presence in Haiti.

Social movements around the world are pressuring their governments for a moratorium on unproven GM seeds and foods, yet theUnited States is giving Monsanto free reign, aiding and abetting their agenda, and the Gates Foundation is starting to look more and more like just another arm to further Monsanto’s reach.

In the second quarter of 2010, the Gates Foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million, which means they have a hefty interest in the success of Monsanto’s golden rice and other initiatives.

How to Bow Out of the Madness

If you want to get involved on a global scale, you can sign PANAP’s People’s Statement on Saving the Rice of Asia, which calls upon national, regional and international policy makers to ban genetically modified rice, along with seven other actions, to “save … rice, the staple food of half the world’s population, from the greed of agrochemical transnational corporations.”

In Thailand, the Thai Ministry of Agriculture has already implemented a successful “Rice Strategy,” which bans GM rice, labeling it unnecessary and a risk to sustainable farming — and the hope is that regions around the world will soon follow suit.

On an individual level, you can get educated on GM foods, which are prevalent in your supermarket right now (virtually all processed foods contain GM ingredients, unless they are certified organic), so you can opt out of including these foods in your diet.

To start, I urge you to print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

If you’re feeling really ambitious you can order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and distribute them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

For more information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of theInstitute for Responsible Technology:

• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

There are also a number of great films and lectures available, including:

• Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Please, do your homework. Together, we as consumers have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of consumers to simply stop buying GM foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients.

Sources:

Food Freedom June 3, 2011

Greenpeace June 2, 2011

Huffington Post June 7, 2011

Earth Open Source June 2011 “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?”

GM Watch June 7, 2011

Red, Green, & Blue June 8, 2011

Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies as part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. And Monsanto isn’t the only biotech company that will be permitted to police itself.

As it stands, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops. The agency has been lax about this, to say the least. In 2005, the USDA gave Monsanto the go-ahead to unleash its sugar beets before preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. This decision eventually triggered a judge to rule that Monsanto sugar beet seedlings should be ripped from the ground.

Because the USDA is so bad at doing its job on time, the agency decided to see if anyone else was prepared to do its safety testing work instead. And so it looks like the USDA will at least temporarily hand over environmental impact reporting responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops. The pilot program will allow these companies to conduct their own environmental assessments of crops or outsource the work to contractors. The USDA will still get the final say in determining the safety of crops.

The USDA won’t actually admit that it’s bad at performing its duties–instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective, according to the Federal Register (PDF). No knock on Monsanto, which is surely made up of great, honest people, but if the company has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn’t it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn’t its hired contractors do the same? If this wasn’t so dangerous, it would be funny.

Already, GMO crops are causing environmental problems. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, corn, and cotton have spawned Roundup-resistant superweeds, which force farmers to douse their crops in even more Roundup Ready pesticides (that’s called synergy). And cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO crops is making it ever more difficult for companies to stay organic.

Don’t expect any immediately catastrophic changes to the food-supply chain. Instead, the USDA’s experiment may slowly push through more GMO crops into fields and onto our plates. One day, we may realize that these crops have triggered irreversible damages. At least we’ll know exactly who to blame.

The USDA has been under fire recently for its admitted assault against nature, after multiple investigations have uncovered its deliberate tampering with both plants and animals alike. One such investigation has put an end to the mystery surrounding the death of millions of birds, with USDA documents revealing the organization’s role in the massive slaughter. In addition to the mass bird killings, it turns out the USDA was fully aware that a highly-popular herbicide chemical was a known bee-killer, which may have aided the bee decline. The USDA has also threatened the genetic integrity of the nation’s crops. Information has surfaced regarding the USDA’s illegal approval of Monsanto’s biotech crop, sugar beets. These crimes are simply an excerpt from the long list of USDA crimes that are continually being exposed.

In December of 2010, mystery struck the world. Reports of mass fish and bird die-offs were coming in from Texas to Sweden. The first occurrence in the series of strange events started in Arkansas, where 3,000 birds fell from the sky. In the following days and weeks, similar incidents were reported with no solid explanation. The reason has now been found, thanks to documents found on the USDA’s website. Claiming to be protecting farmers from predators, the birds were victims of a little-known government program. Like millions of other animals since the Bye Bye Blackbird program was created in the 1960′s, the birds were poisoned and killed for being considered a nuisance to farmers. It is important to take note that many of these animals don’t pose any immediate threat to farmers.

In recent years the world honey bee population has plummeted in North America. This is important because bee pollination is crucial for the fertilization of many crops. Just as many potential explanations arose over the mysterious bird deaths, many different theories have been proposed to explain the bee decline. Electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate have all taken the heat of critics looking for answers. Recently, however, a document was leaked revealing that a bee-killing pesticide put in use by the EPA may be to blame. Adding to the controversy, more records have emerged showing that the USDA was fully aware of the pesticide’s threat to not only bees, but humans. The two-month-old report released by the USDA itself unveiled that the toxic insecticide used on plants are not only a threat to insects’ central nervous systems, but are also a threat to the internal systems of humans. Neonicotinoids, the particular type of pesticides used, are absorbed systemically into plants, including the pollen and nectar. Once the bees begin to pollinate, they also absorb the insecticide, and die. But that is not the end of the USDA corruption.

Sugar Beets created by corporate giant Monsanto Company, who is leading the genetically modified food market, make up for about half of the nation’s sugar supply. The approval of these beets was initially made in 2005, granting Monsanto the right to plant genetically modified sugar beets that could withstand sprayings of the herbicide marketed as Roundup. The entity responsible for the approval? The USDA. Unfortunately, the USDA hadn’t conducted a thorough review of the biotech crop, making the approval flagrantly illegal. To make matters more complicated, the USDA issued permits which allowed companies to plant seedlings that would later produce seed for future sugar beet crops. Judge White, the federal judge who deemed the approval illegal, issued that the seedlings be removed immediately. The immunity that the sugar beets possess against the herbicide being used on them is not exhibited by any other plant, or even humans. With excessive herbicide use comes more poisoned organisms consuming the sugar beets and thus becoming sickly. Additionally, conventional and organic crops are subject to contamination from an overflow of pesticides.

This is just a small fragment taken from a list of government corruption. The USDA seems to be recklessly endangering life on this planet with its disregard for what it was created to protect. The reports and documents revealed in this article may very well be the tip of the iceberg. The recently-released document unveiling the bee decline is two years old, and is most likely not the last to be uncovered. It is only a matter of time before more secretive documents come out highlighting the USDA’s shameless lack of respect for life. The USDA has not been forced to openly admit to these claims due to a lack of mainstream media attention. It took investigative journalism to discover these documents and it will take future investigation to oust even more of the USDA’s corruption.

In an interview with the magazine L’Osservatore Romano on January 5, a prominent member of the Vatican spoke out against genetically modified crops. Cardinal Peter Turkson said that genetically modified crops are a “new form of slavery,” and went on to discuss the impact that they have on both the environment and the economy. Regardless of religious association, anyone speaking out against genetically modified should be listened to. As a prominent leader of the Catholic people, Cardinal Turkson has the ability to inform millions worldwide regarding the negative effects of genetically modified food.

Even farmers have risen up against Monsanto and genetically modified seeds, with Monsanto forcing thousands of farmers into debt worldwide. In India, Monsanto has ruined the lives of so many farmers that the prevalence of their suicide has led to a large farming area to be titled the ‘suicide belt of India’. Some have even blamed Monsanto for the recent bird and fish deaths, claiming that the poison coming from their factories may have poisoned animals worldwide. Monsanto’s destruction isn’t limited to the environment, however.

Genetically modified foods been proven not only to be a threat to nature, but extremely harmful to humans. The process of bioengineering GM ingredients itself is quite ridiculous. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, tainting it with genetically modified frankenfood. Genetically modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed. The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature, but it leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism’s genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the most simple bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effect genetically modified food, as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

Monsanto has inexorably pushed for wides-cale dominance of the world’s food supply by buying out competition and using FDA regulations to get around accurate labeling. In fact, labeling has protected Monsanto from excessive criticism for quite some time. Under the ludicrous labeling guidelines, food products in the United States do not even have to openly state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. While countries like Australia require products to labeled genetically modified if they contain an ingredient that is more than 1% genetically modified, the United States goes by no such precautionary code.

Besides Monsanto’s crusade to alter the very genetic coding of the food, they have been charged with discharging toxic waste that included PCBs into a west Anniston creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills. The people in that area had no idea, and continued to swim and play in the creek. PCBs have been classified as a persistent organic pollutant, meaning they are resistant to environmental degradation. While they heavily pollute the environment, PCBs are also extremely toxic. PCB production was banned in 1976 by the U.S. Congress, and ultimately by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.

A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences also helped to end the debate regarding the health effects of genetically modified food (GMO). The study shows that three Monsanto corn varieties cause a direct health hazard, with the study picking up mainstream attention.

There is a world-wide debate concerning the safety and regulatory approval process of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. In order to scientifically address this issue, it is necessary to have access to toxicological tests, preferably on mammals, performed over the longest time-scales involving detailed blood and organ system analyses. Furthermore, these tests should, if possible, be in accordance with OECD guidelines. states the introduction.

For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems, indicated Gilles-Eric Seralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Sources:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html

de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
http://www.gm.org/gm-foods/genetically-modified-food-labeling

Forbes magazine has named Monsanto, the company responsible for introducing genetically modified food into the food supply, “company of the year”. It sounds like satire, but it sadly is not. The company responsible for crushing family owned farms and bioengineering the food that we eat has received an honorary award. Perhaps this is an early April fools joke.

Genetically modified foods been proven not only to be unhealthy, but deadly. The bioengineering process itself is quite ridiculous. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, tainting it with genetically modified frankenfood. Genetically modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed. The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature, but it leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism’s genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the most simple bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effect genetically modified food, as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

Monsanto has inexorably pushed for wide-scale dominance of the world’s food supply by buying out competition and using FDA regulations to get around accurate labeling. In fact, labeling has protected Monsanto from excessive criticism for quite some time. Under the ludicrous labeling guidelines, food products in the United States do not even have to openly state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. While countries like Australia require products to labeled genetically modified if they contain an ingredient that is more than 1% genetically modified, the United States goes by no such precautionary code.

Besides Monsanto’s crusade to alter the very genetic coding of the food, they have been charged with discharging toxic waste that included PCBs into a west Anniston creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills. The people in that area had no idea, and continued to swim and play in the creek. PCBs have been classified as a persistent organic pollutant, meaning they are resistant to environmental degradation. While they heavily pollute the environment, PCBs are also extremely toxic. PCB production was banned in 1976 by the U.S. Congress, and ultimately by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.

Even if the frankenfood produced by Monsanto actually posed no threat to health, they still do not deserve the award given to them by Forbes magazine. They have sued many small-time family farms and monopolized the farming industry using genetically modified crops. The dishonorable practices of Monsanto continue to make headlines around the world, despite how hard the company tries to suppress them.

Sources:

http://www.gm.org/gm-foods/genetically-modified-food-labeling

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html

de Vend´mois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Seralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm