Posts Tagged ‘non-gmo’

Three of the latest WOW discoveries

I’ve been extremely busy reviewing the latest health news, exploring specific healing tools and working with clients. I’m learning so much and experiencing many ‘Aha’ moments. In doing so, I have let my blog casually slip by. So here I am… back and ready to post again even if it’s just sharing periodic “WOW” information. Here are this week’s WOW moments:

1. My current tally of Vitamin D deficiencies is 6 for 6 which means that 6 out of 6 individuals have tested positive for vitamin D deficiency. There are only 30,000 genes in your body and vitamin D has been shown to influence over 2,000 of them. That is one of the primary reasons it influences so many diseases including:
Cancer Hypertension Heart disease
Autism Obesity Rheumatoid arthritis
Diabetes 1 and 2 Multiple Sclerosis Crohn”s disease
Flu Colds Tuberculosis
Septicemia Aging Psoriasis
Eczema Insomnia Hearing loss
Muscle pain Cavities Periodontal disease
Athletic performance Macular degeneration Myopia
Pre eclampsia Seizures Fertility
Asthma Cystic fibrosis Migraines
Depression Alzheimer”s disease Schizophrenia

Vitamin D really isn’t a vitamin at all but a potent neuroregulatory steroidal hormone. It has become very clear that vitamin D deficiency is a growing epidemic across the world and is contributing to many chronic debilitating diseases. Some doctors allege as high as 95% of the population may be vitamin D deficient, my results are leaning in that direction entirely.

#2. TWO Faced Monsanto: Monstanto is doing everything in its power to not allow labeling of GMO goods in this country. BUT in Britain they advertise themselves as supporters? See the video here under the heading ‘the two faces of Monsanto’. Labeling of GMO foods has been fought against by Monsanto and its lobbyists by using millions of dollars in marketing and ads. California was nearly successful in making the manufacturers of GMO foods responsible in labeling their goods. Now the movement is taking place in Washington. Why the fight in the US and not in Great Britain? Because Monsanto doesn’t have an option in the UK.

#3. Coke is a joke campaign.  It’s been suspicious for quite some time that aspartame, the ‘no calorie sugar substitute’ used in Diet Coke is a danger to your health.  Recently aspartame was deemed ‘the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods’. When ingested aspartame metabolizes into wood alcohol (a poison) and formeldahyde (a carcinogen that cannot be filtered through the liver and kidneys).  It’s linked to brain damage, cancer, seizures, migraines, and any neurodegenerative disease we can think of.  Stay away from all products with aspartame in them; especially Diet Coke.  Remember it’s about eating the right foods with calories not the wrong foods with no calories.  Interested in research? Here are 20 of hundreds of studies on aspartame

Off to a conference on methylation/sulfation. 

Be well,


The debate is over: DOCTORS warn : Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

By Jeffrey M. Smith (taken from
jeffrey smith, GMO

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets without genetically modified (GM) foods to all patients.1 They called for a moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), long-term independent studies, and labeling, stating,

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

…There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says,

“Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.”

Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava also believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America.

Pregnant Women and Babies at Great Risk

GM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children. After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died—compared to 10 percent deaths among controls fed natural soy.2 GM-fed babies were smaller, and possibly infertile.3

Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark blue.4 Mice fed GM soy also had altered young sperm.5

Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.6 And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.7

In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, and infertility; many calves died.

About two dozen US farmers said thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile.8

In the US, incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food that Produces Poison

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in pesticide called Bt-toxin—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. When bugs bite the plant, poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so biotech companies claim that Bt-toxin must be safe.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray. It is designed to be more toxic,9 has properties of an allergen, and cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can be harmful. When dispersed by planes to kill gypsy moths in Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms.10,11 The same symptoms are now reported by farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.12

GMOs Provoke Immune Reactions

GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are “a consistent feature of all the [animal] studies.”13

From Monsanto’s own research to government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune reactions.14 15

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says

“I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

GM soy and corn contain new proteins with allergenic properties.16 and GM soy has up to seven times more of a known soy allergen.17 Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals Dying in Large Numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”18 In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.

In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.19

Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.20 In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 40 rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.21

Worst Finding of All—GMOs Remain Inside You

The only published human feeding study revealed that even after you stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of you; genes inserted into GM soy transfer into bacteria inside your intestines and continue to function.22

If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform your intestinal bacteria into a living pesticide factory.

Warnings by Government Scientists Ignored and Denied

According to documents released from a lawsuit, scientists at the FDA warned that GM foods might create allergies, poisons, new diseases, and nutritional problems.23 But the White House ordered the agency to promote biotechnology, and Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, headed up the FDA’s GMO policy.

That policy declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. Monsanto and other producers determine if their foods are safe.

Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president, and was reinstalled at the FDA in 2009 by the Obama administration as the US Food Safety Czar.

How You Can Opt Out of Being a Guinea Pig

Biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute says,

“If there are problems [with GMOs], we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

In the nine years after GM crops were introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.24 But without any human clinical trials or post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a contributor.

Citizens need not wait for more research to take the doctors’ advice: avoid GMOs.

For your convenience, I have prepared this Non-GMO Shopping Guide using information from the Center for Food Safety and Institute for Responsible Technology. Even a small percentage of people choosing non-GMO brands could force the food industry to remove all GM ingredients.

Thus, the AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

Tell the USDA that you DO care about GE contamination of organic crops and the food you eat! Let the USDA know that you WILL reject GE Contaminated Alfalfa and Alfalfa-Derived Foods and that GE Alfalfa will significantly increase the use of pesticides, resulting in harm to human health and the overall environment.

Also, send the FDA your feedback now!

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, please visit

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods.

His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

For a straightforward guide to shopping Non-GMO, see the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
erry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002.” December 17, 2002
Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
“Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006
Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
See memos at
Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

Why is UNICEF picking a fight with MDs that are making a difference?

(Taken from
By Dr. Mercola

Truth becomes treason in an empire of lies. Attacks against health web sites like yours truly and others, and our readers—yes, that would be you—are rapidly escalating.

Thinly veiled threats are issued not just by industry spokespersons (many of whom hide their industry ties from their readers), but also international organizations like UNICEF. It’s become very evident, very quickly, that now more than ever, we need your support to counter the increasingly dirty tactics of these industry players.

Simply by reporting the scientific evidence—which is published in peer-reviewed journals, mind you—I’ve been labeled as a top “anti-vaccine influencer” for my pro-safety stance on vaccines, and a “media supporter of domestic eco-terrorists” for my reporting on the hazards of Roundup and genetically engineered foods.

Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?

A recently published report1 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the organization is tracking “the rise of online pro-vaccine safety sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.

UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent health websites like, and, just to name a few. In their opening reference, they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated to children’s health and wellbeing, and instead of addressing the ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines, they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck2 and GlaxoSmithKline3 (GSK).

They spend precious time and resources on public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.

UNICEF’s Bedfellows

This is especially disturbing because Merck has been involved in numerous criminal scandals and class-action lawsuits in recent years, including fraudulently marketing its deadly drug Vioxx; lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine.

Additionally, they engaged in scientific fraud (a charge brought by its own scientists); and hiding critical side effects associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, just to name a few of the most publicized.

Even more shocking, in 2009, it was revealed that Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that indeed ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market.

Two years later, in 2011, the company ended up pleading guilty to a criminal charge over the fraudulent marketing and sales of this deadly drug.4 But sure, let’s listen to UNICEF and trust the guys who go so far as to threaten the lives of those who question the safety of a very factually dangerous drug. Then there’s GSK, whose leadership among corporate criminals is illustrious indeed.

Not only was GSK found guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history just last year, for which they were fined $3 billion. A couple of months ago, Chinese authorities accused the company of bribery and illegal marketing schemes. Chinese police claim to possess evidence showing that bribery has been a “core part” of GSK China’s business model since 2007.

Doctors and government officials are said to have received perks such as travel, cash, and sexual favors that when combined, amounted to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports. The company allegedly used travel agencies as middlemen to carry out these illegal acts. Four Chinese GSK executives have so far been detained on charges of cash and sexual bribery.

GSK also spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales. While carousing with the true liars and criminals, UNICEF deems it fitting to paint me and other health journalists as the liars; the ones leading you astray.

Little does UNICEF realize that by publicizing a list of monitored “vaccine influencers”—the health reporters who stick pegs in the wheels of their crafty PR schemes by publishing all those studies the vaccine industry would rather see buried—they’ve basically given you a Who’s Who of real vaccine information.

Maybe we should thank them rather than rail against their poor judgment? As stated by Sayer Ji5 of, who was also targeted in the report:

“[W]hile the document purports to be analytical and descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and voices. UNICEF’s derogatory stance.

This is all the more surprising considering that websites such as aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine, much of which comes from high-impact journals.”

GMO-Labeling Supporters Now Accused of Supporting Eco-Terrorism. What’s Next?

Another recent article, published in Forbes Magazine,6 really ups the ante of the attack on health journalists and their readers with the headline: “ Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.” The article, written by Jay Byme and Henry I.Miller, reads in part:

“In recent years, [eco]terrorists have attempted to gain sympathy and “justification” for their actions by means of disinformation campaigns that relentlessly smear the safety and utility of genetic engineering applied to agriculture… “Frankenfood” headlines may sell newspapers and organic food, but this kind of “black marketing” — enhancing the perceived value of your products by disparaging those of your competitors – can also encourage serious criminal acts.

…There exists in this country a vast, well-established, highly professional, protest industry fueled by special interest groups seeking to line their own pockets… Anti-genetic engineering campaigns are openly funded and promoted by mainstream organic food marketers like Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Organic, and alternative health and food-supplement hucksters Joe Mercola and Mike Adams — all cynical fear-profiteers who benefit from increased consumer mistrust in their competitors’ products… The ultimate objective, of course, is to sell more overpriced, overrated organic food…

One result of the widely disseminated disinformation effort is an environment that provides encouragement to extremists who commit criminal acts. It comes from the Facebook and Twitter followers of the genetic engineering conspiracy theorists, organic marketers and “right to know” labeling activists… Against the backdrop of this fear-mongering, hate-speech and support for acts of terror toward legal, highly regulated, safe and societally valuable R&D, we should condemn not only the perpetrators themselves but also their corporate and media enablers.”

Why Am I on Biotech’s Hit List?

Alright, now that we’ve been labeled as “enablers of domestic eco-terrorism” as well—again by simply reporting on research that is published in peer-reviewed journals and interviewing educated researchers and professionals in the field—let’s take a look at who’s behind the name calling. The first author of this hit-piece is Jay Byrne, whose author’s bio identifies him as president of v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations, Inc. Why does Mr. Byrne fail to mention in his bio that he was a former Monsanto executive?

Jay Byrne actually headed up corporate communications for Monsanto Company from 1997 to 2001. And this piece is nothing if not a corporate communication; clearly, there are persistent ties there. How nice for Monsanto to be able to call up their old communications director and have him pen a totally impartial article warning you of your eco-terrorism ties and contributions, should you decide to support a GMO labeling campaign. Back in 2001, Jay Byrne also made the following statement, which is more than a little telling:

“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table. Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed.”

Byrne’s company v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations7 is also a thinly veiled arm of big Biotech. According to Byrne, “traditionally produced foods and agricultural practices are under attack… Leveraging such issues as pesticides, GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, Mad Cow disease, CAFOs and trade concerns linked to risk factors (human health, environmental risks and consumer choices/controls).” If that’s not a statement taken right out of Big Biotech’s playbook, I don’t know what is. He’s certainly not speaking with any concern for your health and wellbeing.

Perhaps Jay would like to address the recent contamination of alfalfa and wheat exports. While it was just recently approved for commercial use, it was already found in contaminated and rejected exports sending yet another shock to countries who require labeling or reject genetically engineered crops. Monsanto is single-handedly destroying farmer’s export markets by genetically polluting and contaminating our entire agriculture.

The following slide is from his 2013 conference presentation8 on Food and Agricultural Advocacy, which carries the following description (you can view the slideshow in its entirety here):

“These five stakeholders represent a core group of commercial players who act in advocacy roles seeking to influence public attitudes, commercial and governmental policies negatively impacting agriculture and food biotechnology. These influencers directly or via their organizations have been principal drivers via direct activities, funding or complementary marketing behind North American anti‐GMO advocacy campaigns in 2011.

While the scope of this report focused on NGOs it is important to note that absent commercial partners – specifically those in the organic, natural products and alternative health sectors – who provide funding and other leverage for anti‐GMO advocacy there would be little effective or sustained advocacy in this space.”

Remember Henry Miller?

Coincidentally, if the name Henry I. Miller—the second author of that hit piece—rings a bell, it could be because you paid attention during last year’s campaign to get genetically engineered foods labeled in California. He was front and center of the “No on Prop 37” campaign, posing as a Stanford professor in TV commercials and flyers, telling California voters that the ballot measure was “arbitrary,” “completely illogical,” and “ill conceived.”

In reality, he’s not a Stanford professor; he’s a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Furthermore, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus. The campaign’s TV ad was eventually pulled due to the misrepresentation of Miller.9 He also has a long history10 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco.

If you care about your right to know what’s in your food, your right to choose organic, and your right to learn how your food is being produced, I suggest you etch the names Jay Byrne and Henry Miller into your memory, so you know exactly who is speaking when you come across their industry PR pieces, because nowhere do either of these men fess up their close ties to the industries they defend.

The Science Media Centre—the Dark Side’s PR Center

Another not-so-independent source of information is anything generated by the Science Media Centre (SMC).11 Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.12 The SMC13 claims to be “an independent press office helping to ensure that the public have access to the best scientific evidence and expertise through the news media when science hits the headlines.” Yet their list of funding sources reads like a a Who’s Who of big biotech14 — multibillion dollar giants like:

BASF Bayer CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group) Abbott Laboratories
Monsanto Novartis Syngenta Astra Zeneca
Coca-Cola Biochemical Society Chemical Industries Association GlaxoSmithKline

The organization lays claim to being objective and non-biased because they don’t receive more than five percent or so of their funding from any one company, organization or individual. But how non-biased can you possibly be when so much of the funding comes from different companies and front groups within the same industries? Their highly conflicted panel of “experts” represent the funding industries and are NOT providing the media with objective academic feedback. Why would any company pay to have some independent, objective expert speak out against them? In short, the SMC has one agenda, and that is to deceive you with corporate propaganda.

For example, they provide handy tips to their “independent” experts in a document15 called “Communicating Risks in a Soundbite: A Guide for Scientists.” It explains how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, “Is it risky?” the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, “the benefits outweigh the risks.” Another suggested answer: “It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe.”

Not exactly players with an objective view of science.

This might explain why the Science Media Centre pounced16 on the French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech. The very same day the French report was published came a press release17 from the Science Media Centre claiming “anomalies throughout the paper” despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.

In short, you can bet if there’s a harmful substance out there that makes money, there are at least one or more front groups, posing as independent non-profit organizations, disseminating anything but independent safety reviews and information pertaining to it. It’s high time to pull back the curtain and see who’s really pulling the strings and levers.

I hope you will support not only this web site by reading and sharing what you learn here with others, but also any number of other health journalists reporting the results of research that Big Business would rather you didn’t know. It’s quite clear that many of us have targets on our proverbial backs, and the attacks are quickly escalating. Now is the time to stand together, form a united front, and show them that we simply will not be cowed by their thinly-veiled threats.

Why Does Monsanto Hate Americans?

Interestingly ,Monsanto seems to be fine with supporting GMO labeling when there’s no other choice. Here’s a Monsanto ad from the UK, letting British consumers know how much the company supports the mandatory labeling of their goods—even urging Britons to seek such labels out—ostensibly because Monsanto believes “you should be aware of all the facts before making a decision.” What’s the difference between British shoppers and American shoppers? Why does Monsanto support one nation’s right to know but not another?

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Be well,