Native Americans Promise ‘Direct Action’ to Stop The Keystone Pipeline By Any Means Necessary | The AntiMedia.Org

by: Jonathan Schoenfeld | The Anti-Media

Propositions are increasing for the development of a keystone pipeline. Because of potential environmental hazards and government theft of native american territory through eminent domain, organizations such as Honor the Earth, the Oglala Sioux Nation, Owe Aku, and Protect the Sacred have issued the following statements:

“The Oglala Lakota Nation has taken leadership by saying “NO” to the Keystone XL Pipeline. They have done what is right for the land, for their people, who, from grassroots organizers like Owe Aku and Protect the Sacred have called on their leaders to stand and protect their sacred lands. And they have: KXL will NOT cross their treaty territory, which extends past the reservation boundaries. Their horses are ready. So are ours. We stand with the Lakota Nation, we stand on the side of protecting sacred water, we stand for Indigenous land-based lifeways which will NOT be corrupted by a hazardous, toxic pipeline.”

Additionally the activists continued to urge others to contribute in the effort to combat the production of the pipeline. They implemented specific actions that contributors can practice as follows:

As Native Nations, we’re ready to protect our homelands from this pipeline, and we need to SHORE UP OUR SUPPORT of organizations like Owe Aku and Protect the Sacred, who are on the ground organizing in the Lakota Nation.

We also need to put the pressure on Barack Obama to recognize that:

1) The Lakota Nation – a sovereign governmental body – has united its government and grassroots against the pipeline, and the United States needs to honor treaty rights by denying the pipeline.

2) There is direct conflict of interest in the report issued by the State Department — the process is broken, and a new report which reflects the true environmental impact is needed.

3) This pipeline will, in fact, increase carbon emissions and cause grave and irreversible environmental harm globally. This pipeline would cause direct environmental harm — and put the well-being of all who live in relationship with the Oglala Aquifer at risk.

Canada Tarsands Image: Flickr

4) In recognition of our responsibilities to protect Mother Earth, Native peoples will not allow this pipeline to come across our treaty areas. We will defend our lives, and our mother Earth, and we need Barack Obama to do the same.

According to politicalblindspot.com:

Those who would like to become further involved and partake in seminars on knowing your rights, blockading and self-defense, first aid and social media, can receive additional information from groups such as Moccasins on the Ground. Debra White Plum of the Lakota Sioux nation is a trainer for the grassroots organization. She said that the group has been training Native activists for this moment for the past year.She says that the training has brought together many geographically distant native groups, fighting towards a common goal.

You can get involved personally and take more action against the Keystone Pipeline on 350.org.

- See more at: 

Native Americans Promise ‘Direct Action’ to Stop The Keystone Pipeline By Any Means Necessary | The AntiMedia.Org

Mexican chocolate, an act of resistance and revolution!

We live interesting times, where growing food can be a revolutionary act. We can return to our agricultural roots, for this is where we will find the lost part our soul. We can do this in our backyards, our empty urban lots, or where ever air meets soil, water, and human hands. Growing food resurrects us. Growing food to share with others enlivens us even more. I love growing food and I love connecting with the people that enjoy it.

A Hole in the Regulation of GMOs that Kudzu Could Fit Through - The Equation

The audacity of biotech borders on insanity. Check out this article on Scotts/Miracle Gro company's new GMO grass. This article appears on the Union of Concerned Scientist's web pages:

A little-noticed, almost nonchalant, article in the Columbus Dispatch last week portends substantial environmental and economic mischief.

Kudzu enveloping a Mississippi environment. It is not on the federal noxious weed list. USDA photo by Peggy Greb.

The article notes that Scotts Company is going forward with plans to commercialize GMO Kentucky bluegrass. Mentioned in passing was that this grass, engineered for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (AKA Roundup), is not regulated by USDA, and that company employees will begin planting the grass at their homes.

What was that? Historically, unapproved GMO crops have been grown only in controlled plots, regulated and monitored by USDA (leave aside that these are not adequately regulated either). So why are Scotts employees allowed to grow this grass in an uncontrolled environment?

We have to go back to two little-noted decisions by USDA in July of 2011 to understand this. First, the USDA denied a petition from the Center for Food Safety to regulate the GMO bluegrass as a noxious weed under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PPA), despite fitting the agency’s criteria.

Second, USDA decided that because the genes used to make the GMO grass did not come from known plant pests (e.g., plant pathogens), and did not use a plant pest to introduce the genes into the grass, it would not be regulated as a possible plant pest. To grasp the importance of this, it must be understood that virtually every previous GMO plant or crop has been regulated as a possible plant pest.

These two decisions mean that the GMO bluegrass will not be regulated by USDA, and hence can be grown freely, even though it has not gone through the typical regulatory process. This has implications far beyond the specific case of GMO bluegrass.

In the earlier days of genetic engineering, the large majority of engineered crops contained genes or parts of genes from plant pests (such as from plant viruses), or used a modified bacterial pathogen (called Agrobacterium) to introduce the genes into plants.

But in most cases, it is now easy to avoid these constraints, as Scotts did. The use of pest genes as a reason to regulate GMOs was always unsupportable scientifically. Many genes from pathogens are no more (or less) harmful than genes from non-pathogens. But because our GMO regulations are based on inadequate laws already in existence in the 1980s, the agencies were left trying to fit a regulatory square peg into a statutory round hole, and came up with the pest-gene ruse.

Read entire article here:

A Hole in the Regulation of GMOs that Kudzu Could Fit Through - The Equation

Subway: Stop Using Dangerous Chemicals In Your Bread

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™

The Natural Effect

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™

Monsanto - Picking Up God's Slack

Farmers and Moms: Tackling Our Broken Food System | Inspired Bites

I love reading Robyn O'Brien's articles. She hits it so squarely on the head. Here is an article in response to the Monsanto Super Bowl ad.

“96% of American farms are still family owned. Which means on the farm the CEO is usually referred to as mom, and mom usually refers to her big farming operation as home,” began a Monsanto ad that ran during the half time of last night’s Super Bowl.

I’m named after one of these farmer moms.  Her husband died on the farm when he was 42.  She is this kind of CEO.

So I paid attention as the ad went on.  It was in partnership with the American Farmers.  It used moms.

As I listened, I thought of all of the moms working on farms that I have had the privilege to meet in this work.  They sit on both sides of the GMO aisle, some using this technology and the suite of chemicals required to grow genetically engineered foods, devoted to feeding our country, some opting out and using technology that does not require the use of RoundUp Ready chemicals.  I thought about the daughters of farmers that I have met, the science writers that are moms, the food entrepreneurs, the teachers, the attorneys and all of the moms that I have had the privilege of connecting with in this work.

And I thought about how all of us, regardless of whether we feed our kids genetically engineered food from large scale farms or food from our own gardens, want the same thing: happy, healthy kids and a strong country.

But that is not where we stand.  Too many of us have friends with children who have diabetes, allergies, asthma, autism, pediatric cancer and so much more.  And we’re all trying our best to feed our kids healthy food on the budgets that we have.

As I watched the ad, the words of a food industry executive (a “big food” industry executive) came to mind.  He’d shared them at a policy meeting: “No one would choose the food system we have today.”

These words had come to mind again last week, while working with two obese moms, struggling to feed their families healthy food on a restricted budget.  As one shared her frustration, her eyes welled with tears.  ”Why is the food that is so full of artificial ingredients and chemicals so cheap,” she asked, “while the food that is free from all of these additives and labeled organic so expensive?”

Clean and safe food, free from all of these additives, should be affordable to all Americans, especially in light of our escalating rates of diseases and the associated burden that health care costs are putting on our economy.

The entire article is here:

Farmers and Moms: Tackling Our Broken Food System | Inspired Bites

GM Purple Tomatoes Set for EU Legal Problems over Human Testing - Sustainable Pulse

Following the announcement last week that 1200 litres of GM purple tomato juice is being sent to the UK from Canada for testing, before the GM tomatoes themselves enter shops across the country, EU and US scientists have expressed serious concerns.

The aim is to use the GM tomato juice in research to conduct a wide range of tests including examining whether the anthocyanin they contain has positive effects on heart patients in UK hospitals. However, according to a number of EU and US scientist sources, these GM tomatoes have never been tested for toxicity in animal feeding trials, which is a legal requirement in the EU.

If regulators in the EU do allow human trials before animal testing, this will violate EU regulations for GMOs and at worst would border on a criminal act, given that it is possible that an adverse reaction might take place. Canadian regulators are also set for similar legal problems, if as expected they allow GM tomatoes to be sold in the country within 2 years.

The GM purple tomatoes were invented at the John Innes Centre in Norwich by a team led by Prof Cathie Martin. Due to EU regulations the tomatoes were then sent to Canada, where they were developed further.

The GM tomatoes contain the pigment, known as anthocyanin, which is an antioxidant and claims have been made suggesting that they could help fight cancer. These claims are based on the results of a small scale test on mice which has beenrefuted or questioned by experts, including the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) and Cancer Research UK (CRUK).

GM Watch has outlined the main points regarding why GM purple tomatoes are not required and also a number of scientific points on why they could be dangerous to human health:

1. A general point about anthocyanins: There are over 200 types and they constitute the main red/purple pigment class found in common fruit and vegetables, e.g. red cabbage, red onions, berries, etc. (Note: the purple of beetroot is not an anthocyanin but another nonetheless valuable antioxidant.) Thus one can have a diet rich in anthocyanins without resorting to GM purple tomatoes. What Cathie Martin and her colleagues have produced is totally unnecessary given the abundance of anthocyanins already in food plants.

2. The Ti-plasmid transgene cassette contains a kanamycin (antibiotic) resistance gene, which would have been used in the initial selection of the GM transformants. They don’t mention the use of kanamycin selection in the methods section of their paper but there is no other way they could have conveniently selected for transformants. It is conspicuous they avoid mentioning this, perhaps in order to avoid attracting attention to it, in light of the fact that the EU has asked for antibiotic resistance genes not to be present in the final GM plant.

3. The transgenes involved are two from snapdragons and are a class of proteins known as “transcription factors”; ie proteins that control the expression of many other genes. Thus there is no way that these two transcription factor genes would have just turned on the target genes for anthocyanin synthesis and not interfered with the function of others. The data they present looking at gene expression profiles is inconclusive in this respect using a somewhat outdated, crude method compared to what can be done now. The tomato genome sequence has now been determined and so state-of-the-art methods such as gene-chip microarrays or better still total mRNA (transcriptome) analysis by high throughput sequencing can now be used to properly assess what the GM process has actually resulted in.

4. These tomatoes CANNOT be called substantially equivalent to the non-GM parent as they have a substantially different chemistry and composition compared to the non-GM parent.

5. No generic toxicity testing, either short- or long-term, of these tomatoes has been published and we must assume it has not been done. The only additional work published with these GM purple tomatoes is to show that high anthocyanin in the skin extends shelf life. No work has been done to see if nutrient content is preserved during the time of extended shelf life. If the nutrient content is not preserved, then it’s a rip-off in terms of what the consumer is getting.

6. The whole idea of GM “nutritionally enhanced” foods starts with two major conceptual flaws; (i) there is something wrong with the diversity of foods we have already and (ii) that high levels of a single nutrient is going to result in significantly improved health status – in this case, warding off cancer. This is nonsense on both counts.

So in allowing these GM tomatoes to be grown on their territory, the Canadian authorities, rather than being more “enlightened”, as Martin claims, appear to have been “endarkened” by pro-GM propaganda.

For those who are fixated on a purple tomato-related answer to cancer, a peer-reviewed study found that extracts of the fruit of non-GM anthocyanin-rich tomatoes inhibited two human cancer cell lines in a dose dependent manner.

Read entire article here:

GM Purple Tomatoes Set for EU Legal Problems over Human Testing - Sustainable Pulse

Dow Chemical: Destroying Our World

The Constitution of the United States vs. the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The TPP must be stopped!

— submitted by Jim Howe*
January 19, 2014

The Constitution of the United States was written to limit and define the powers of the government of the United States. It divides that government into three (3) branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Bill of Rights was added to further limit the powers of government. The Constitution could not have been adopted without the Bill of Rights. The Constitution begins with “We the People”. It is written in plain English, takes up all of four (4) pages, and can be easily understood by “We the People”. It, and the Bill of Rights, were written as a defense against tyrannical government.

This article will reference several sections of the Constitution that are inconvenient to supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (The full text of the Constitution can be found here: http://constitutionus.com/)

Over time, powerful economic interests have leveraged their economic power to purchase law-makers, change laws, have corporations defined as people, and had money defined as speech. Now they want to give international corporations special status above the rights of people and beyond the control of governments.

Supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership recognized, over five (5) years ago, that it could not be ratified if its provisions were known to the American people. Under the Constitution, International Treaties must be negotiated with the “Advise and consent” of the Senate and ratified by a two thirds (2/3) majority of the Senate. (Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2)

Negotiations for the TPP have been conducted over the past five (5) years. Six hundred (600) corporate advisors have been present to give their “Advise and consent” throughout the negotiations. The text of the TPP has not been released. Congress has been denied the right to see the text. (Congressman Grayson was allowed to view some of the text, but not allowed to take notes or have members of his staff view the text.) What is known about the text is from leaks. Information about what is known about the TPP can be found here:http://www.exposethetpp.org/

Because the TPP is an International treaty, Countries ratifying the TPP must change their laws to conform to the provisions in the TPP. Article 6, paragraph 2 provides for treaties taking precedence over state constitutions and state laws, and that the Constitution, U. S. laws, and treaties “Shall be the supreme law of the land. “ Therefore, if a treaty is ratified, laws have to be changed to comply with the treaty.

Economic gains for the U.S. adopting the TPP are projected to be 00.13 percent. ) That’s right 13 one-hundredths of 1% (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages) If that increase in economic activity were distributed equally, and it won’t be, a person earning wages of $600.00/week would gain 78 cents/week. That 78 cents/week would be offset by higher prescription costs, loss of internet freedoms, export of jobs, and degraded environmental standards.

Read the entire article here:

The Constitution of the United States vs. the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Climate change the state of the science (data visualization)

USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin

From the files of the USGS.gov web site: It's raining Roundup Herbicide!

Glyphosate, also known by its tradename Roundup, is commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed, according to two new USGS studies released this month. 

Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. 

"Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment," says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. "This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused."

In these studies, Glyphosate was frequently detected in surface waters, rain and air in areas where it is heavily used in the basin. The consistent occurrence of glyphosate in streams and air indicates its transport from its point of use into the broader environment.  

Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year.  The degradation product of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which has a longer environmental lifetime, was also frequently detected in streams and rain.

Detailed results of this glyphosate research are available in "Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere," published in volume 30 of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and in "Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins," published online in Pest Management Science. Copies of the reports are available from the journals or from Paul Capel (capel@usgs.gov).

Research on the transport of glyphosate was conducted as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. The NAWQA program provides an understanding of water-quality conditions, whether conditions are getting better or worse over time, and how natural features and human activities affect those conditions. Additional information on the NAWQA program can be found online.

USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin

Concerned about your food? Don't panic, go organic!

Protecting Organic Seed Integrity: The Organic Farmer’s Handbook to GE Avoidance and Testing | OSGATA

Why Protect Organic Seed?
The organic seed industry is at the same time especially vulnerable to transgenic contamination and also a crucial link to reducing contamination. Organic seed, which by definition is free of genetically engineered (GE) contaminates, is the foundation of organic agriculture. Organic crops grown with contaminated seed will inevitably yield a contaminated crop. GE contamination, however trace, is unacceptable.

Compromised organic seed integrity has broad-reaching impacts on the viability of organic farms and the credibility of organic products. Organic farmers also risk the threat of patent litigation in the face of contamination. In order to limit GE presence in organic seed, growers need to become educated about best practices for contamination avoidance.
Ensuring the Integrity of Organic.
The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association has produced a manual, entitled Protecting Organic Seed Integrity: The Organic Farmer’s Handbook to GE Avoidance and Testing, to serve as a one-stop tool to help farmers, as well as seed handlers and seed companies, maintain genetic purity in organic seed, as well as organic food crops.

It offers pertinent guidance on seed contamination avoidance and testing protocols for the following at-risk crops (those with USDA-approved GE counterparts which are currently in commercial production): corn, soy, cotton, alfalfa, papaya, canola (Brassica rapa), sugarbeet, and squash (Cucurbita pepo).

The recommendations have been synthesized through an assessment of international literature, as well as solicited input from organic farmers, seed company professionals, and seed breeders familiar with isolation and purity concerns, along with implementation constraints in the field.

Resources for Organic Farmers.
The following resources are available as free electronic downloads. Please consider making a donation to OSGATA to ensure that we can continue offering resources to the organic seed community free of charge.



Protecting Organic Seed Integrity: The Organic Farmer’s Handbook to GE Avoidance and Testing.



Protecting Organic Seed Integrity: The Organic Farmer’s Handbook to GE Avoidance and Testing | OSGATA

The Littlest Boy. Or how to strap a nuclear weapon on your back and go to war.

You have to read this one. Training soldiers to carry back pack nuclear weapons right to the battle field. The height of insanity. We can't trust our government to do the right thing. We need more oversight, not more NSA spying on innocent civilians.



Entire article here:

The Littlest Boy

Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Slate Article Missed | Inspired Bites

Yesterday’s article out of Slate telling parents not to worry about pesticides caused quite a stir.

It runs completely counter to the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the President’s Cancer Panel which urges parents to avoid exposing their children to these chemicals when and wherever they can.

How pervasive have these chemicals become?  Seeds are now produced using methyl bromide. Corn seed is still coated in neonicotinoids and still uses atrazine. Soy still uses diflubenzuron  and methomyl.  Do we have the studies to show that these chemical in combination are safe for children?  What is the compound toxicity of this on the developing digestive tract and immune system of a child?

A study published in Pediatrics found that the risk of having ADHD increases in children who have higher concentrations of dialkyl phosphate metabolites. The metabolites indicate exposure to organophosphates, pesticides that affect the nervous system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

This is a controversy to serious to ignore.  On top of the concerns shared in the journal,Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control now reports that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in American kids under the age of 15.  1 in 2 men are expected to get it in their lifetime, along with 1 in 3 women.  Correlation is not causation, but in light of the combination of chemicals being used on and in our food supply, it merits investigation.

The author of the Slate piece, while feeding her own young children organic produce, free from synthetic pesticides, argued that organic foods may not be much healthier or more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.  The title of the piece is”Organic Schmorganic”, and it caused quite a stir.

A deeper investigation into pesticides reveals a few things that were not highlighted in the coverage.

While scientists out of Stanford recently analyzed vitamins and minerals, suggesting little variation between foods produced organically and those produced conventionally using a chemically-intensive agricultural system, food isn’t simply a delivery device for vitamins and minerals alone.

We are quickly learning in this industrialized food era that our food can be full of a lot of other things.  It has become a delivery device for artificial colors, additives, preservatives, added growth hormomes, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides and so much more.

The term “organic” actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed and legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.

The details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:

• antibiotics
• artificial growth hormones
• high fructose corn syrup
• artificial dyes (made from coal tar and petrochemicals)
• artificial sweeteners
• synthetically created chemical pesticide and fertilizers
• genetically engineered proteins and ingredients
• sewage sludge
• irradiation

Read entire article here:

Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Slate Article Missed | Inspired Bites

Farmed and Dangerous Official Trailer

Frankenmosquitos

Exposing the TPP

"Our Food Is Dishonestly Priced": Michael Pollan on the Food Movement's Next Goal of Justice for Food Workers

Industry plays up the image of the food snob to keep us divided, but the stereotype hides a much more diverse and savvy movement, says best-selling author and food activist Michael Pollan.

Take a stroll through most grocery stores, and many of the products claim to be organically grown or locally sourced. The foodie movement has swept America in the last decade, thanks in no small part to the work of journalists and intellectuals who have championed the cause online, in print and on the airwaves.

Michael Pollan is inarguably one of the most influential of these figures. Pollan is most famous for his books, especially In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto (2008) and The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006). He also contributes regularly to publications such as the New York Times Magazine, where his work has received numerous awards, and is a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. 

As organic, locally grown food has emerged as a cultural and economic counterforce to industrialized agriculture, critics have claimed it is elitist and accessible only to those with the resources to pay more for their nourishment. Pollan and his allies have responded, in part, by drawing the public's attention to the low-wage workers who work in the field, behind the counter, and in the kitchen. In recent years Pollan has supported the efforts of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, an organization dedicated to improving working conditions and wages for tomato pickers' in Florida; in December 2013 he sided with fast food strikers and their demand for a $15 dollar per hour wage. In an email missive for MoveOn.org (received by 8 million subscribers), Pollan wrote: "If we are ever to . . . produce food sustainably and justly and sell it at an honest price, we will first have to pay people a living wage so that they can afford to buy it." In his words, fair wages must be part of the push to democratize food.

Entire article here:

"Our Food Is Dishonestly Priced": Michael Pollan on the Food Movement's Next Goal of Justice for Food Workers

Want to Avoid GMOs? Look for This Label | Maria's Farm Country Kitchen

What do Cheerios and apples have in common? They are the latest and very public battlegrounds for the GMO debate. But these two mainstays of American childhood nutrition are headed in opposite directions: While the Arctic apple, genetically modified to not brown when it’s cut, is all but set to be approved for production; original Cheerios is now GMO free. And while the general public is wholeheartedly in support of knowing what is in its food, shoppers are still confused as to what all the labels really mean.

Now some of the very groups who dumped millions into defeating state GMO labeling laws across the country have changed tack and are pushing for a national GMO labeling law; one that requires labels only on GMOs “proved” to cause health problems. The problem? Patents and “intellectual property” laws not only severely restrict how GMOs can be researched, but also have provided an easy way for the companies to discredit study results they don’t like.

While food and seed giants figure out how to take the teeth out of GMO labeling laws before they even happen, there is good news for the more than 90 percent of American consumers who want to know whether or not something contains GMOs: We already have a label.

Certified-organic farmers and food producers can’t use GMOs. Ever. And there are strict regulations in place for certified-organic producers to avoid GMO contamination, including testing. As Melody Meyer, vice president of policy and industry relations at United Natural Foods, Inc., and a Rodale Institute business member, explained recently, “In November 2012, the NOP clarified through formal rule making that testing for prohibited residues in organic products, including GMOs, MUST occur periodically (on an annual basis), and that certifiers must investigate and issue noncompliance notices accordingly to organic operations that fail to meet the requirement.”

Entire article here:

Want to Avoid GMOs? Look for This Label | Maria's Farm Country Kitchen

New Hawai’i Bills Seek to Undermine Kauai and Big Island’s GMO Regulatory Laws | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute

Big Ag and their big money is out to take away home rule and let the continued poisoning of paradise. Once again we must fight to protect the land from biotech hooligans that test their newest chemicals without oversight. We had to sue and pass legislation just to get the giant chemical companies to tell us WHAT they were spraying next to schools! Now all that could be undone by preemptive laws from the state. We will not bow to our corporate masters! The new "plantation" owners will not win this one, we will fight to protect what we love.

New Hawai’i Bills Seek to Undermine Kauai and Big Island’s GMO Regulatory Laws | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute

Monsanto’s Bt-Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo Cells ~ RiseEarth

Many individuals have heard it a million times, but for the uninformed, or those just looking to fuel their 2014 fire to finally defeat Monsanto and their cronies, you’ll be interested to know that Monsanto’s Bt-toxin is far from ‘safe’ as the chemical company claimed it would be when filing their papers with the FDA. New research from Canada show that BT toxins are showing up in pregnant women, and low and behold – they are killing human embryo cells. 2014 is the year of the horse, but we’re not through beating this one to death. 

It’s called reproductive toxicology, and just like their suicide seeds, these Bt toxins are starting to kill our own unborn children. This is no exaggeration. Hopefully reading further will compel you to take action. It is time to put Monsanto to rest, bankrupt them, and let the world know their ‘secrets’ near and far. 

Bt toxins are prominent in genetically altered crops such as corn, soy, wheat, and others, called Cry1Ab – and they can be lethal. Not only do these cry-toxins target the kidney cells of developing human fetuses, but when Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac are combined with RoundUp, they can delay apoptosis of human cancer cells. What’s worse, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, also causes necrosis – i.e. the death of human tissue, and this happens even when the substance is found in much smaller amounts than what is currently being used on our agricultural crops. The stuff is still carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range. 
Read entire article here:

Monsanto’s Bt-Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo Cells ~ RiseEarth

Japan Remains Hotbed of TPP Protest as U.S. Tries to Fast-Track Trade Deal, Crush Environmental Laws

Japan has been a hotbed of protest against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would establish a free-trade zone stretching from Japan to the United States to Chile, and encompass nearly 40 percent of the global economy. Now, new documents released by WikiLeaks show the White House may be ready to backtrack on a series of critical regulations in order to secure a deal on the trade pact, including legally binding requirements for pollution limits, logging standards, and a ban on the harvesting of shark fins. The draft version of the "environmental chapter" also reveals that the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations that are party to the TPP would rely on trade sanctions instead of fines if a country violates its obligations. The Sierra Club responded to the latest news saying that if the draft report were to be finalized, "President Obama’s environmental trade record would be worse than George W. Bush’s." Meanwhile, hearings begin today in Congress on legislation to establish fast-track authority that would allow Obama to sign the TPP before Congress votes on it. Broadcasting from Tokyo, we’re joined by Nobuhiko Suto, a former member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in Japan’s House of Representatives, where he was among the first legislators to point out the dangers of the TPP. He is the secretary-general of the group, Citizen’s Congress for Opposing the Transpacific Partnership. We’re also joined on the phone by Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch based in Washington, D.C.

Is Organic Really Better?

By Robyn O’Brien

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently weighed in for the first time on organic food, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting that feeding kids organic fruits and veggies and organic meat just might reduce the risks of certain conditions and diseases and have some health benefits.

The President’s Cancer Panel also sounded alarm bells about chemicals and cancer, encouraging us to eat organic when we can, to reduce our exposure to pesticides and other additives being applied to our foods.

This is something I certainly didn’t do when my kids were younger, reflecting on all of the tubes of blue yogurt and packages of processed foods I’d served up.

When I first heard the term “organic” several years ago, I dismissed it. It connoted a “status” and conjured up two different images: lifestyles of the rich and famous or perhaps some alternative, hippie thing.

I was wrong.

The term “organic” actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and produced. It legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.  When I first learned about it, I thought it was a marketing tool.

The legal details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:

• • antibiotics
• • artificial growth hormones
• • high fructose corn syrup
• • artificial dyes (made from coal tar and petrochemicals)
• • artificial sweeteners derived from chemicals
• • synthetically created chemical pesticide and fertilizers
• • genetically engineered proteins and ingredients
• • sewage sludge
• • irradiation

Wow, who knew that conventional, non-organic food could contain these ingredients?  Not many of us, since sewage sludge and artificial growth hormones aren’t on the label.

Read the entire article here:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/is-organic-better/

Pharmaceutical CEO: Cancer Drug Is Only For Westerners Who Can Afford It

The gap between the haves and have nots is widening when it comes to basic human rights and needs.

In 2005, the FDA granted approval for a promising new cancer-fighting drug called Nexavar. Bayer took it to market shortly thereafter, and it is currently an approved treatment for late-stage kidney and liver cancer.

That is, so long as you live in the developed world. In a recently published interview in Bloomberg Businessweek, Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers said that his company’s drug isn’t for poor people.

“We did not develop this medicine for Indians…we developed it for western patients who can afford it,” he said back in December. The quote is quickly making its way across Indian news outlets.

The comment was in response to a decision by an Indian patent court that granted a compulsory license to a local company to reproduce Bayer’s drug. Under Indian patent laws, if a product is not available locally at a reasonable cost, other companies may apply for licenses to reproduce those products at a more affordable price. Nexavar costs an estimated $69,000 for a full year of treatment in India, 41 times the country’s annual per capita income.

In 2012, Indian pharmaceutical company Natco Pharma Ltd. applied for just such a license, and it was granted. The company began reproducing the drug at a 97 percent discount, offering it for just $177. Bayer has been appealing the ruling ever since, and in December Dekkers told Businessweek that he viewed the compulsory license as “essentially theft” before dismissing poor Indian cancer patients.

Read entire article here:

Pharmaceutical CEO: Cancer Drug Is Only For Westerners Who Can Afford It | ThinkProgress

What do you know about GMO?

Have you had trouble explaining GMOs to friends or family? Here is a quiz you can send them that will help enlighten them.

Quiz Brought to you by The Christian Science Monitor.

GM Food Quiz 

Keauhou Kona Farmers Market

His Holiness the Dalai Lama's New Year's Message for 2014

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™

Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr Debates the Legalization of Pot on ...

Really, America, get a grip and legalize, marijuana, and hemp.

256 Year Old Chinese Herbalist Li Ching-Yuen, Holistic Medicine, and 15 Character Traits That Cause Diseases

It does not matter if this is true or not. For what he promotes will make you feel good today, and today is the only day we really have.

256 Year Old Chinese Herbalist Li Ching-Yuen, Holistic Medicine, and 15 Character Traits That Cause Diseases

Sunrise at Kona Hawk Farm

Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes

Finally, science is catching up with the old adage, "You become what you think about."

With evidence growing that training the mind or inducing certain modes of consciousness can have positive health effects, researchers have sought to understand how these practices physically affect the body. A new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of intensive mindfulness practice.

The study investigated the effects of a day of intensive mindfulness practice in a group of experienced meditators, compared to a group of untrained control subjects who engaged in quiet non-meditative activities. After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes, which in turn correlated with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

The study was published in the Journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Read more:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your GenesTunedBody

Cheerios Goes Non-GMO | GMO InsideGMO Inside

Now this is some amazing news to start the new year! Cheerios goes Non-GMO!

Less than 48 hours into the New Year, and there’s big news to share. There’s no more GMOs in Cheerios.  On a new page launched over the holiday, General Mills announced that they no longer use genetically modified ingredients in original Cheerios.

“It’s the unique and simple nature of original Cheerios that made this possible – and even that required significant investment over nearly a year. Cheerios’ principal ingredient has always been whole grain oats, and there are no GMO oats.  We use just a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar per serving for taste.  So we were able to change how we source and handle ingredients to ensure that the corn starch for original Cheerios comes only from non-GMO corn, and our sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar. ”

It’s no coincidence that General Mills began investing in non-GMO Cheerios when it did. 

When GMO Inside began in November 2012, we chose General Mills as our first target for using genetically modified ingredients in Cheerios. Last year, when General Mills launched a customer feedback Facebook app, GMO Insiders promptly flooded the page, causing the whole project to shut down.

Read entire article here:

Cheerios Goes Non-GMO | GMO InsideGMO Inside

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™