Russia labels GMOs, while America’s government sells out to the biotech poisoners and propagandists

Monday, March 25, 2019 by: Vicki Batts

(Natural News) GMO labeling laws have been a source of controversy in the United States for quite some time. Consumer advocates have called upon the federal government to protect Americans’ right to freedom of choice and to encourage transparency in the food industry, but officials seem to be more interested in defending corporate interests. Industry leaders are afraid proper GMO labeling will interfere with their bottom lines — that alone should be a huge red flag. But while federal officials in the United States are twiddling their thumbs over GMOs, nations around the world are beginning to take action. Russia, for example, just introduced clear GMO labeling on all foods.

While GMO labeling laws have been passed in the United States, the proposed implementation of such laws leaves much to be desired. Critics say GMO labeling practices enacted here in America function more like propaganda for the biotech industry. Brightly colored smiley-face stickers that don’t even bear the letters “GMO” are hardly a clear identifier, after all. Heaven forbid Americans actually make informed decisions about the food they eat– the entire industry would collapse overnight if people knew what they were really getting.

Clear GMO labeling comes to Russia

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which includes Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Belarus, introduced their new, clear GMO labeling practices at the start of the new year. All food and supplements containing genetically modified ingredients will bear a “GMO” label on the packaging.

As Sustainable Pulse reports:

According to the new regulations, the basic size of the GMO label must not be less than 5 mm. The technical regulations also require that the GMO label be applied in a manner that provides easy readability and visibility throughout the shelf life of food and supplement products.

Across the board, the EAEU is taking a firm stance on GMOs. In 2016, Russia’s State Duma voted on a bill which would ban the cultivation of GMO crops and animals in Russia entirely, except for scientific purposes. And in 2018, the Kyrgyzstan government announced that it would be the second country in the world to adopt organic-only farming practices.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is a world away from reaching any kind of transparency on GMOs.

GMO labeling in the U.S. is lackluster

Congress passed a law to label GMO products in the U.S. back in 2016. Since that time, federal officials have been struggling to come up with the specifics of labeling such items. The USDA recently revealed a few of the “options” they’ve come up with. As NPR reports, all options are brightly colored, friendly looking labels that bear the letters “B.E” instead of “GMO.” Some show a smiling sun, or a circle of growing plants, too.

“B.E” is apparently supposed to stand for “bioengineered,” and this little change is clearly an attempt at placating Big Biotech and Big Ag. As critics have stated, replacing the well-known and easily recognizable term “GMO” arbitrarily with some new term will only confuse consumers. The average person may not be aware of the fact that “B.E” actually means “GMO.”

This is a blatant attempt to obscure truth and feign transparency, and it should not be tolerated. The federal government is literally conspiring to fool the American people, to protect corporate interests. Who are these federal agencies supposed to serve and protect, again?

George Kimbrell, the legal director for the Center for Food Safety, criticized the USDA’s iteration of GMO labeling. “They’re very pro-biotech, cartoonishly so, and to that extent are, you know, not just imparting information but instead are essentially propaganda for the industry,” he told NPR.

The failure to come up with a clear and easily understood label for GMO products is an affront to American freedom. Regardless of one’s view on GMOs, the simple fact remains that people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. Ingredient labels exist for a reason — and GMO labels should, too. (Click to Source)

Learn about GMO labeling and more at GMO.news.

Sources for this article include:

SustainablePulse.com

NPR.org

Glyphosate Found in 19 of 20 Beers and Wines Tested

Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller that some studies have linked to Monsanto—is also a secret ingredient in nearly 20 popular beers and wines.

That’s the finding of a new study from the education group U.S. PIRG, which found glyphosate in 19 of 20 wine and beer brands tested, including organic labels and brews.

The release of the study coincides with the beginning of the first federal trial against Monsanto and its new parent company Bayer over whether Roundup use caused a plaintiff’s cancer, USA Today reported Monday.

“With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate,” study author and U.S. PIRG Toxic’s Director Kara Cook-Schultz told USA Today. “This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans’ health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks.”

The drink with the highest glyphosate concentration was Sutter Home Merlot, at 51.4 parts per billion (ppb). Popular beer brands like Coors Light, Miller Lite and Budweiser all had concentrations above 25 ppb. The full results of the study, from highest to lowest glyphosate concentration in ppb, are listed below.

Wines

  1. Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
  2. Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
  3. Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
  4. Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
  5. Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb

Beers

  1. Tsingtao Beer: 49.7 ppb
  2. Coors Light: 31.1 ppb
  3. Miller Lite: 29.8 ppb
  4. Budweiser: 27.0 ppb
  5. Corona Extra: 25.1 ppb
  6. Heineken: 20.9 ppb
  7. Guinness Draught: 20.3 ppb
  8. Stella Artois: 18.7 ppb
  9. Ace Perry Hard Cider: 14.5 ppb
  10. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale: 11.8 ppb
  11. New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale: 11.2 ppb
  12. Sam Adams New England IPA: 11.0 ppb
  13. Stella Artois Cidre: 9.1 ppb
  14. Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager: 5.7 ppb

The only beverage tested that contained no glyphosate was Peak Beer Organic IPA.

The amounts found were far below the safety limits for glyphosate set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as Bayer toxicologist William Reeves told CBS News via a spokesperson.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies,” Reeves said. “Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency’s glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping.”

However, the study noted that chemicals aren’t necessarily safe just because regulatory bodies say they are.

“While these levels of glyphosate are below EPA risk tolerances for beverages, it is possible that even low levels of glyphosate can be problematic. For example, in one study, scientists found that 1 part per trillion of glyphosate has the potential to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupt the endocrine system,” the study said.

The EPA has found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans, but the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer ruled it was a probable human carcinogen in 2015. More recently, a study released February found that those exposed to glyphosate were 41 percent more likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In the first case to go to trial against Monsanto over Roundup last year, a jury ruled that exposure to glyphosate had caused the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman is making a similar claim in the first federal glyphosate trial that started Monday.

“Due to glyphosate’s many health risks and its ubiquitous nature in our food, water and alcohol, the use of glyphosate in the U.S. should be banned unless and until it can be proven safe,” the U.S. PIRG study advised. (Click to Source)

Get online and get completely recovered! We are a Biblical Online Recovery Program that is life changing and empowering. We are Teen Challenge Certified Teachers and have integrated the world famous Teen Challenge PSNC curriculum for the most healing fusion of elements for your recovery. VRM is breaking the chains of addiction for a lifetime! Check us out!

24/7, 365 access to a board certified medical doctor, by phone or video. One low monthly cost of $12.95 for an individual plan or $19.95 for a family plan. No extras! No added consult fees! All inclusive! Visits are anytime, day or night and holidays. Cancel anytime. No one should ever be without this plan and everyone can afford it. This special pricing is for my readers here.

 

What to expect from the new GMO labels we’re getting in 2020

woman_shopping_groceries

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced their plan for rolling out mandatory labels for all food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). So far they’ve only released potential prototypes for the labels and a proposed set of rules, both of which are subject to future changes, but they offer a preview of what we might all be seeing on cans and boxes come 2020, when the new regulations would go into effect.

Here’s a quick guide:

Remind me what a GMO is?

A GMO is, at base, any organism (plant or animal) that has been genetically modified in some way. Crop plants may have genes inserted that give them resistance to common herbicides or insects, for example, or even to ward off viruses. These fixes would be impossible or very challenging to achieve with conventional breeding, where you would need to wait for a genetic mutant to arise that happened to have herbicide resistance.

Under this new provision, though, an organism is technically only a GMO if the gene that’s been added is from a different organism. So tweaking a mushroom’s DNA by turning off a gene wouldn’t mean you had to label it as a GMO. Adding a gene from a virus to give a papaya viral resistance would. Here’s the technical definition straight from the USDA:

A bioengineered food is one that “(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and (B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

What will the labels say?

Somewhat confusingly, they won’t say “GMO.” The proposed labels use the terms “BE” and “bioengineered” instead to avoid the contentious connotations that GMO carries. They labels look quite friendly, which people in the pro-labeling camp have already criticized, and would only appear as a small icon on the final food product. You can check them out here—they’re mostly the letters B-E inside a happy green and yellow circle. But using those labels is just one of three options. The second is to write out the disclosure (for example: “contains a bioengineered food ingredient”). Companies could also opt to use a QR code that would link to the proper disclosure.

If the current proposal passes, that could mean companies who want to hide their GMO affiliations could easily obscure the information, at least from consumers who aren’t going to take the time to scour the small print or scan a QR code (or can’t). It’s open to comment from the public until July 3, and a final ruling will come out later this year (the USDA hasn’t said exactly when yet). Not much is likely to change at this point, though. Congress has already enacted the standard—this is just figuring out the nitty gritty of enforcement.

Which foods will get the labels?

Not all food products are subject to these regulations, but perhaps the most important exemption is for highly refined products like corn syrup or cane sugar. More than 90 percent of the corn and sugar beets grown in the U.S. to make those products are genetically modified. The USDA doesn’t require labeling because there’s no genetic material detectable in the final product. Though that logic makes sense for consumers who are only worried about the safety of eating GMOs, it doesn’t if consumers want to avoid supporting companies who use GMOs, or who have environmental concerns about GMO crops.

Foods with non-GMO primary ingredients won’t need a label, either. Meat and eggs, for instance, are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act labeling requirements, so any product where those are the predominant ingredients won’t need a BE label, regardless of whether any GMO items make it in. Seafood isn’t treated the same way (except for catfish, for some reason), because it’s not subject to the FMIA rules.

Why is all of this happening?

Food companies on both sides—organic and otherwise—have long lobbied the federal government to either include these labels or not include them, depending on what they stood to gain or lose. Organic food producers are generally in favor, in part because of their values but also because it will likely make their products more visibly distinct to consumers seeking “natural” options. Companies who use GMO ingredients have generally opposed the labels, in part because they argue GMOs are safe—which scientific evidence backs up, by the way—but also because they worry consumers will avoid the labels out of unfounded fear.

If GMOs are safe, why should we label them?

A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2016 found, after reviewing over 1,000 studies on the matter, that GMO crops don’t pose a health risk to humans. That’s the same conclusion reached by the World Health Organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission.

But consumers may not be avoiding GMOs for safety reasons. Some people may have concerns about companies like Monsanto controlling so much of our agricultural sector, others may simply gravitate towards eating as naturally as possible. Monsanto controls roughly a quarter of the global seed market and it licenses its genetic modification technologies to DuPont, its largest competitor (which controls 18 percent of the market). Their seeds grow into 80 percent of the corn and 90 percent of the soybeans in the U.S. That level of monopolization makes a lot of people understandably uncomfortable. Plus, there can be unforeseen consequences of genetic meddling, even though human health doesn’t seem to be a concern. The invention of crops resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide, has made glyphosate itself more popular—they’re a perfect pair (and both sold by Monsanto). But it’s also made some glyphosate-resistant weeds emerge and thrive, even though Monsanto claimed that was a remote possibility.

Whether or not you feel the need to avoid GMOs, labeling efforts are at least a step forward for transparency. (Click to Source)

CLICK HERE for the finest faith based personalized and compassionate addiction recovery program – right from the comfort of your home.

CLICK HERE for Healthy Reishi Mushroom Infused Coffee and an unbeatable coffee club. Super affordable!

Monsanto’s RoundUp is more dangerous than we realized: Even the inert ingredients have proven to be dangerous

roundup1-706x403“Inert ingredient” is a fickle, deceptive term used on pesticide and herbicide labels to shield severely toxic ingredients from safety testing and consumer scrutiny. “Inert” sounds harmless, but these ingredients fly under the radar untested by U.S. regulatory agencies, and as intended, these inert ingredients make “active” ingredients more potent.

The “active” ingredient of Roundup herbicide is a carcinogen called glyphosate. This chemical has been extensively studied by international research teams that make up the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO). After a yearlong study, IARC concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” But the toxicity doesn’t end there.

While glyphosate by itself is carcinogenic to humans and destructive to microbe ecology, the parts that don’t get studied are the “inert” ingredients and how their synergy makes glypohate even more devastating to human health. What role do “inert” ingredients play in disrupting human endocrine systems, cellular processes, and assisting the permeation of toxins across the blood-brain barrier?

“Inert” ingredients are designed to enhance glypohsate’s toxicity as an herbicide. Since glyphosate is also a registered antibiotic, it is inevitably doing great damage to human gut health. Becoming part of the food and water supply, glyphosate and its host of inert ingredients work together and deplete the good bacteria that control much of the human digestive and immune systems.

The inert ingredients of Roundup that often go ignored, are actually powerful adjuvants that make glyphosate more pervasive in the environment, delaying the breakdown and decay of glyphosate, while allowing the carcinogen to more readily penetrate tissues. These “inert” ingredients are making glyphosate more of a nightmare long term. It’s the synergistic chemistry that should trouble consumers the most. Consequentially, we are now being exposed to glyphosate in organic products. Human breast milk passes these toxins on to infants. The U.S. regulatory agencies are not monitoring and testing products for glyphosate toxicity or heavy metal accumulation.

In the U.S., pesticide manufacturers are only required to test the active ingredient by itself and not required to test the full formulation; therefore, the true toxicity of Roundup is beyond fathomable.

Caroline Cox of the Center for Environmental Health and Michael Surgan of the Office of the Attorney General of New York State took it upon themselves to study the synergy of glyphosate and the inert ingredients in Roundup. Their paper, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that the entire pesticide formulation induced toxic effects greater than the herbicide’s lone active ingredient. Most concerning is the damage the whole product causes to the genetic information of cells. While glypohsate alone causes cancer, the inert ingredients allow glyphosate to penetrate further, damaging chromosomes and causing DNA mutations. In another study, Roundup as a complete formulation was much more lethal to human placenta cells than glyphosate alone. The formulation inhibited the activity of the enzyme aromatase, which plays an important role in the human endocrine system.

Some of the “inert” ingredients by themselves may actually be more toxic to humans than glypohsate. When studying the toxicity of nine pesticides and their individual ingredients, Caen researcher, Gilles-Eric Seralini found that an adjuvant of glyphosate, polyethoxilated tallowamine, was more deadly than glyphosate when tested on human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Eight of the nine formulations were “one thousand times” more toxic than the active ingredients alone.

In conjunction, French scientists concluded that “inert” ingredients in Roundup are 10,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. Their study, “Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles,” was published in Biomedical Research International in 2014.

Sources include:

BaumhedlundLaw.com

GMO. news

Glyphosate.News

NaturalNews.com


Make sure that the food you’re eating and the foods in your long term emergency storage are both clean and non–gmo!  You can get those foods at EZprepGourmet.com.

THRIVE Simple-Plate-Image-South-Pacific-Stir-Fry-with-Pulled-Pork3


Visit InsistOnOrganic.com for non-gmo and organic foods, supplements and all personal care items.Essante protein meal replacement

TRANSHUMANISM: THE ULTIMATE AIM OF THE SYNTHETIC AGENDA AND THE DISTORTED HEART OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

2-5-900x400

The synthetic agenda is the overarching agenda of the New World Order worldwide conspiracy. Think about it – so many aspects of the conspiracy are about supplanting the real with the fake, the organic with the inorganic, the carbon with the silicon and the biological with the artificial.

In the synthetic agenda, everything in our world is being threatened with replacement by an inferior version or fake replica of itself – which sells itself as superior so as to increase the acceptance and assimilation of it. Almost everything around us is a facade, fake or fraudulent. For instance, we have vaccines, petrochemical drugs and radiation masquerading as “medicine”, foreign corporations masquerading as “government”, mainstream science masquerading as “knowledge”, GMOs masquerading as “food” and fiat paper masquerading as “money”.

However, as David Icke in Phantom Self has been saying, the deeper reason is that all these fake things are being created from some sort of virus or distorted force that has hacked the source and digital-genetic code of life itself – and is madly spewing out an inferior version of everything in the only way it knows how. Ultimately, this force is using the synthetic agenda to entrain us onto its frequency and transform us into a hybrid species that will no longer be able to be called human. (Click to Site)

Disclosed emails prove that SCIENCE has been totally corrupted by Monsanto, and regulators have become prostitutes and shills for GMOs

monsanto-e1456383207955

(Natural NewsA new batch of internal company documents has been releasedshowing that agricultural giant Monsanto suppressed key data about the potential dangers of its Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide. These documents also suggest that the multinational chemical corporation worked with United States regulators to make Roundup appear safer than it is in order to gain regulatory approval.

More than 75 documents have been made public revealing discussions, text messages, and other communications between Monsanto executives and various academics and scientists about its products. Some of these documents show that Monsanto employees offered cash payments to scientists in exchange for their stamp of approval.

The documents have been made public as part of a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by individuals who say that exposure to Roundup caused themselves or their family members to fall ill with serious health conditions. Among these is non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer that’s increased in prevalence alongside increased use of Roundup.

Attorneys at the firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, which is just one of many firms representing the thousands of plaintiffs who are pursuing claims against Monsanto, posted the documents, which collectively account for more than 700 pages of information. Upwards of 100 of these lawsuits have reportedly been consolidated in multi-district litigation in the federal court of San Francisco, while others are pending in places like Missouri (Monsanto’s home state), Delaware, and Arizona.

“This is a look behind the curtain,” stated Brent Wisner, one of the Baum Hedlund attorneys representing the case.

“These show that Monsanto has deliberately been stopping studies that look bad for them, ghostwriting literature and engaging in a whole host of corporate malfeasance. They (Monsanto) have been telling everybody that these products are safe because regulators have said they are safe, but it turns out that Monsanto has been in bed with U.S. regulators while misleading European regulators.” (Click to Site)

GMO industry now screaming that delays in government approval of genetically engineered crops are KILLING people

scientists-involved-in-genetic-modification-food-crops

(Natural News) It looks like the pro-GMO propaganda machine has been at work again after a new study published in Plos ONE says that children will die because of the government’s slow approval of GM crops.

In the study, a group of researchers calculated the effects that the delays could cause on the population of five countries in Africa. They used a calculation model that looks at the economic benefits for consumers and producers as well as the advantages of reduced malnutrition in subsistence farm households.

According to their calculations, had Kenya adopted GE corn back in 2006, somewhere between 440 and 4,000 lives could have been saved. If Uganda had seized its opportunity to introduce a type of banana that is resistant to the black sigatoka in 2007, they believe that between 500 and 5,500 lives could have been saved during the last ten years.

It would be interesting to see a similar calculation of how many people would have died had these countries introduced those crops as planned. How many new cases of cancer would there be? How many butterflies, honeybees and livestock would have died? What condition would the soil and water be in now?

Let’s not forget what happened in India, where more than 290,000 cotton farmers have killed themselves since the introduction of GM cotton there. The high price of the GM seeds placed many of these farmers into cycles of debt they couldn’t break free from, with fresh seeds needing to be purchased each year and replanting not a possibility. Here’s a calculation those in charge of approving those Bt crops in Africa might want to consider: One Indian farmer kills himself every 30 minutes because of the devastation caused by GM crops.

Overall, the researchers believe that a year-long delay in approving the Bt cowpea in Nigeria could end up costing the country anywhere from $33 million to $46 million along with as many as 3,000 lives.

Their estimates come as authorities mull the approval of Bt cowpea in Niger, Nigeria and Benin. It was intended to be introduced this year, but approvals are still pending. They say this delay could be particularly harmful to Nigeria, where malnourishment is rampant. One of the study’s authors, Justus Wesseler, even goes so far as to say that these approvals could be important for all of Europe because it would reduce migration. (Click to Site)

The Biotech Industry Is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs from the Inside

isbgmo14

by Jonathan Latham, PhD

The British non-profit GMWatch recently revealed the agribusiness takeover of Conabia, the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina. Conabia is the GMO assessment body of Argentina. According to GMWatch, 26 of 34 its members were either agribusiness company employees or had major conflicts of interest*.

Packing a regulatory agency with conflicted individuals is one way to ensure speedy GMO approvals and Conabia has certainly delivered that. A much more subtle, but ultimately more powerful, way is to bake approval into the structure of the GMO assessment process itself. It is easier than you might think.

I recently attended the latest international conference of GMO regulators, called ISBGMO14, held in Guadalajara, Mexico (June 4-8, 2017). ISBGMO is run by the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR). When I first went to this biennial series of conferences, in 2007, just one presentation in the whole four days was by a company. ISBR had some aspirations towards scientific independence from agribusiness.

I went for a second time in 2011, to the ISBGMO held in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Company researchers and executives were frequent speakers and the conference had become an opportunity for agribusiness to present talking points and regulatory initiatives as if they had the blessing of science. This year, in Guadalajara, companies were now on the conference organising committee and even conferring conference travel scholarships from the podium. A former conference organiser and ISBR board member told me that the previous ISBGMO (St. Louis, USA, in 2015) had been almost entirely paid for by Monsanto. (Click to Site)

After Vatican staff caught in gay orgy, the Pope says GMOs are approved by the Catholic Church

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

(Matthew 24:3-5)

popefrancis

(Natural News) To state it bluntly, Pope Francis is not merely a freedom-hating communist and traitor to the sacred blessing of liberty, he’s actually part of the Satanic takeover of the Catholic Church that has now led the organization down the path of self-destruction.

Not only was the staff of a key Vatican advisor recently caught hosting a gay sex orgy, but now the Church says foods made from genetically engineered seeds that are “owned” by the world’s most evil corporation (Monsanto) are perfectly okay to use in holy church events.

This is only accelerating the demise of the Catholic Church, of course, as people see it abandoning God and cozying up to evil, domineering corporations that seek to place Man higher than God when it comes to seeds and food crops. Aside from the philosophical arguments about seeds and Mother Nature, Monsanto is also the single most evil corporation in the world, running some of the sleaziest “dark ops” negative P.R. operations the world has ever seen, lying, deceiving and smearing clean food advocates in order to dominate the world’s food supply at all costs. (Click to Site)

Five types of American doctors who know nothing about nutrition and push chemical medicines to cover up symptoms of deeper-rooted health problems

doc-her

(Natural News) Ever heard of the 250,000 cotton farmers in central India who took their own lives after being manipulated by promises made by Monsanto? Monsanto claimed to be able to put an end to famine and promised unheard of riches and crop prosperity if the farmers would switch from their conventional farming methods to the use of GM seeds. Many farmers had to borrow money to purchase these seeds, and after several failed harvests, they were left with no income and out of control debt. After going bankrupt from Monsanto’s Ponzi scheme the farmers fell into an endless cycle of depression, hopelessness and despair. It is also believed that, aside from the obvious issue of loss of income, the daily contact with the poisonous pesticides and herbicides also led to the depression these farmers suffered from. They believed the only way out was suicide, many even poisoning themselves with the same pesticides they used to spray on their failed crops.

Do you really believe that dementia and depression caused by consuming toxic pesticides are limited to occupational hazards? What U.S. medical doctors ever test their patient’s blood or urine for pesticides before “recommending” chemical-based prescription medicines to relieve symptoms of pesticide poisoning, heavy metal toxin overload and the resulting nutritional deficiencies?

According to the Alzheimer’s Association and a controlled study that was done at Emory University’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, elevated serum pesticide levels are directly correlated to increased risk of dementia. Currently, at least five million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease – the most common form of dementia and a progressive, fatal brain disease. Is this a coincidence? More and more American crops are being dosed with known carcinogens manufactured in laboratories by Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Cargill and Bayer. Still, hundreds of thousands of U.S. doctors give zero nutritional advice to their patients who come to them suffering from the obvious symptoms, diseases and disorders caused by ingesting pesticides, including those toxins found in genetically modified corn, soy and canola. Go figure. (Click to Site)