ANTI-PROPAGANDA

RSS

Posts tagged with "food"

powerecoads:

10 Reasons Why the Meat and Dairy Industry is Unsustainable


by Abigail Geer


Like it or not, you can’t hide from the facts that eating animal products is becoming a massive problem for everyone on the planet.
Here are 10 reasons why the meat and dairy industry is unsustainable:
1. Deforestation – Farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce a given amount of food energy. In Central America alone, 40 percent of all rainforests have been cleared in the last 40 years for cattle pasture to feed the export market, often for U.S. beef burgers. The World Hunger Program calculated that recent world harvests, if distributed equitably and fed directly to humans as opposed to livestock, could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people.
2. Fresh Water – Without a doubt livestock has one of the largest water footprints on the planet. It may be hard to believe, but the standard American diet requires a whopping 4,200 gallons of water per day (including animals’ drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc.), whereas a vegan diet only requires 300. The easiest way to reduce demand for water is to eliminate the consumption of animal products.
3. Waste Disposal – Today’s factory farms house hundreds of thousands of cows, pigs and chickens and in turn produce astronomical amounts of waste. In the U.S. these giant livestock farms generate more than 130 times the amount of waste that humans do. This waste has polluted thousand of miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater, killing marine life and creating huge dead zones.
4. Energy Consumption – For that steak to end up on your plate it has to consume massive amounts of energy along the way. Growing the grain with a heavy use of agricultural chemicals to feed the cattle, transporting the cattle thousands of miles to slaughter and market, and then refrigerating and cooking the meat all amounts to an absurd use of resources. On average, it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from meat, whereas it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain.
5. Food Productivity – The food productivity of farmland is quickly falling behind population growth, and the only option available to us short of stabilizing population is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing land to food crops. In the U.S. an estimated 56 million acres of land are producing hay for livestock, and only 4 million acres are used to grow vegetables for human consumption.
6. Global Warming – Global warming is driven by energy consumption, and as noted above livestock are energy guzzling, but that’s not all. Livestock also emit potent global warming gases into the environment. Cattle, in particular, produce a significant amount of methane. For example, a single dairy cow produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually.
7. Loss of Biodiversity – Poaching and the black-marketeering of bushmeat is becoming a growing problem as our planet becomes more and more overcrowded and poorer populations venture into wildlife reserves to kill everything from elephants and chimpanzees to bonobos and birds. Hunters are using logging roads, which facilitate a more rapid invasion, that have been opened up by big multinational companies to poach every animal in sight to sell to people in the cities.
8. Grassland Destruction – As the herds of domesticated animals expanded, the environments on which wild animals such as bison and antelope used to thrive were replaced by monoculture grasslands to cater for large scale cattle grazing. Grassland has suffered a massive loss of life. What was once a rich and diverse ecosystem is now is a single species monoculture.
9. Soil Erosion – With 60 percent of the United States’ pastureland being overgrazed, the acceleration of soil erosion and degradation of land is an increasing concern. It takes approximately 500 years to replace just one inch of precious topsoil. While fertilizers may be able to replace a small amount of nutrient loss, the large inputs of fossil energy to do so is completely unrealistic and unsustainable.
10. Lifestyle Disease – The excessive consumption of meat and dairy in developed countries combined with environmental pollution and lack of exercise is causing a wealth of preventable health problems such as heart disease. While western civilizations are dying from strokes, cancer, diabetes and heart attacks after gorging on meat, poor people in Third World countries are dying from disease brought on by being denied access to land to grow grain to feed their families.
When taking into consideration all of the points made above, it’s clear to see that a meat and dairy dependent diet is unsustainable in the long term. Couple that with the threat of rapid population growth — the current U.S. population is an estimated 285 million and is projected to double in the next 70 years — and even greater stress will be placed an our already limited resources, all of which will have to be divided among even larger numbers of people.
Regardless of the role of meat and dairy in nutrition or the ethics of animal rights, on the grounds of economic and ecological sustainability alone, the consumption of animal products is a looming problem for humankind.
If you want to live a low impact lifestyle and reduce your use of the world’s precious resources, then try opting for animal free food choices instead.

powerecoads:

10 Reasons Why the Meat and Dairy Industry is Unsustainable

Like it or not, you can’t hide from the facts that eating animal products is becoming a massive problem for everyone on the planet.

Here are 10 reasons why the meat and dairy industry is unsustainable:

1. Deforestation – Farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce a given amount of food energy. In Central America alone, 40 percent of all rainforests have been cleared in the last 40 years for cattle pasture to feed the export market, often for U.S. beef burgers. The World Hunger Program calculated that recent world harvests, if distributed equitably and fed directly to humans as opposed to livestock, could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people.

2. Fresh Water – Without a doubt livestock has one of the largest water footprints on the planet. It may be hard to believe, but the standard American diet requires a whopping 4,200 gallons of water per day (including animals’ drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc.), whereas a vegan diet only requires 300. The easiest way to reduce demand for water is to eliminate the consumption of animal products.

3. Waste Disposal – Today’s factory farms house hundreds of thousands of cows, pigs and chickens and in turn produce astronomical amounts of waste. In the U.S. these giant livestock farms generate more than 130 times the amount of waste that humans do. This waste has polluted thousand of miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater, killing marine life and creating huge dead zones.

4. Energy Consumption – For that steak to end up on your plate it has to consume massive amounts of energy along the way. Growing the grain with a heavy use of agricultural chemicals to feed the cattle, transporting the cattle thousands of miles to slaughter and market, and then refrigerating and cooking the meat all amounts to an absurd use of resources. On average, it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from meat, whereas it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain.

5. Food Productivity – The food productivity of farmland is quickly falling behind population growth, and the only option available to us short of stabilizing population is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing land to food crops. In the U.S. an estimated 56 million acres of land are producing hay for livestock, and only 4 million acres are used to grow vegetables for human consumption.

6. Global Warming – Global warming is driven by energy consumption, and as noted above livestock are energy guzzling, but that’s not all. Livestock also emit potent global warming gases into the environment. Cattle, in particular, produce a significant amount of methane. For example, a single dairy cow produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually.

7. Loss of Biodiversity – Poaching and the black-marketeering of bushmeat is becoming a growing problem as our planet becomes more and more overcrowded and poorer populations venture into wildlife reserves to kill everything from elephants and chimpanzees to bonobos and birds. Hunters are using logging roads, which facilitate a more rapid invasion, that have been opened up by big multinational companies to poach every animal in sight to sell to people in the cities.

8. Grassland Destruction – As the herds of domesticated animals expanded, the environments on which wild animals such as bison and antelope used to thrive were replaced by monoculture grasslands to cater for large scale cattle grazing. Grassland has suffered a massive loss of life. What was once a rich and diverse ecosystem is now is a single species monoculture.

9. Soil Erosion – With 60 percent of the United States’ pastureland being overgrazed, the acceleration of soil erosion and degradation of land is an increasing concern. It takes approximately 500 years to replace just one inch of precious topsoil. While fertilizers may be able to replace a small amount of nutrient loss, the large inputs of fossil energy to do so is completely unrealistic and unsustainable.

10. Lifestyle Disease – The excessive consumption of meat and dairy in developed countries combined with environmental pollution and lack of exercise is causing a wealth of preventable health problems such as heart disease. While western civilizations are dying from strokes, cancer, diabetes and heart attacks after gorging on meat, poor people in Third World countries are dying from disease brought on by being denied access to land to grow grain to feed their families.

When taking into consideration all of the points made above, it’s clear to see that a meat and dairy dependent diet is unsustainable in the long term. Couple that with the threat of rapid population growth — the current U.S. population is an estimated 285 million and is projected to double in the next 70 years — and even greater stress will be placed an our already limited resources, all of which will have to be divided among even larger numbers of people.

Regardless of the role of meat and dairy in nutrition or the ethics of animal rights, on the grounds of economic and ecological sustainability alone, the consumption of animal products is a looming problem for humankind.

If you want to live a low impact lifestyle and reduce your use of the world’s precious resources, then try opting for animal free food choices instead.

Dec 6

Monsanto, the TPP, and Global Food Dominance

raw-r-evolution:

progressivefriends:

Food safety is only one of many rights and protections liable to fall to this super-weapon of international corporate control. In an April 2013 interview on The Real News Network, Kevin Zeese called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” and “a global corporate coup.”

He warned: No matter what issue you care about—whether its wages, jobs, protecting the environment … this issue is going to adversely affect it … .

If a country takes a step to try to regulate the financial industry or set up a public bank to represent the public interest, it can be sued … .

America does a great job of not talking about this. I don’t hear about on tv nor news based websites

The Agency, under Taylor’s and later under others’ leadership, simply ignored these findings. No human studies were required. GMO foods were allowed to enter the food supply unregulated by the FDA and barely regulated by the USDA, which views them as an important US export product. By 2012, in the US, 90 percent of sugar beets (representing half of overall sugar production) was GMO, 85 percent of soybeans (which are to be found in 70 percent of all supermarket food products), and 85 percent of corn, including the corn used to make high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener used in most soft drinks and processed foods.

The few scientists trying to conduct independent research on GMO often found their careers damaged. Most food research, conferences, and fellowships are funded by “Big Food” companies including Monsanto, which has a chilling effect. Even sympathetic colleagues may be reluctant to back those who dare speak out.

Those who persevered in conducting independent research, often abroad, reported worrisome findings. An Austrian study found that mice fed GMO corn seemed fine in the first and second generations, but by the third were sterile. A Russian study of hamsters fed GMO soybeans found a similar result. Could human beings exhibit a similar, delayed response? No one knows. Another, unrelated study showed that the pesticide used in large quantities on engineered Roundup Ready crops is toxic to male testicle cells and threatens both testosterone synthesis and sperm count.

At the same time that the FDA tries to remain as silent as possible about GMOs, the US Department of Agriculture and other parts of the US government are doing everything they can to promote them. The USDA under both George W. Bush and Obama has sought to accelerate what is already an automatic rubberstamp for new GMO products, to “deregulate” them (including grasses such as alfalfa that cannot be restricted to the planted area), and to provide immunity from lawsuits over the spread of GMO crops to adjoining organic farms. Immunity from lawsuit was especially ironic. For years, GMO producers had threatened, intimidated, sued, and in every imaginable way attempted to bully adjoining farmers. If any of the patented seeds drifted and were found on the neighboring farm, that farmer would be charged with “theft.” The clear message: buy the patented seeds or face destruction through legal costs. Remarkably, courts were buying this specious argument. But finally the persecuted began to counter-sue successfully, and the USDA immediately rushed to provide legal immunity to the GMO producers in the form of an insurance policy that organic farmers would have to buy and that would be their only available form of compensation.

-

Hunter Lewis, Monsanto’s Friends in High Places

I love the fact that I found this article on Mises.org.

(via thefreelioness)

While I am certainly not a naysayer of deregulation per se. I am very much opposed to the legal protection afforded GMO producers by the State. Get the State out of it entirely. Free the markets completely. Let a freed market decide the future of GMO in our food supply. Each individual should be free to choose without infringement whether they want GMO food or not. And if it is determined that GMO’s are a danger, the manufacturers should face every repercussion without artificial protection insulating them.

(via libertariantaoist)

When they talk about de-regulation in this manner, think of it as the legislative branch “de-regulating” the police or “de-regulating” the IRS. The companies rolling out GMOs in over 70% of the food available to Americans are not part of the free market.  They are pseudo-branches of the government and reducing their accountability to other real branches of the government is not a blow to the free market.  It’s just a monopoly on the market that is even less accountable to anyone.  

(via thefreelioness)

drscottisderivativefree:


.
FOOD CHEMICALS:  
Big Pharma + University Faculty on the Take = Dangerous Synthetic Animal-Bulking Drugs in the Meat Supply
.
New Video Raises Questions about Dangerous Food Additives
.
The Chronicle of Higher Education issued a report about animal scientists in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies like Merck. The report, “As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?”  highlights the relationship between corporations and scientists, where scientists act as salesmen for the companies’ animal drugs, “Convincing ranchers that [drugs like] Zilmax will transform their cattle into ‘bovine Schwarzeneggers’…”
Animal scientists employed by public universities help pharmaceutical companies “persuade farmers and ranchers to use antibiotics, hormones, and [beta-agonist] drugs like Zilmax to make their cattle grow bigger ever faster,” the report states.
The relationship is profitable for both the pharmaceutical corporations and the professors and universities. Universities increasingly depend on the industry for research grants, and many professors put money into their pockets by acting as consultants and promoters for the companies.
According to The Chronicle, “the close relationship between animal scientists and pharmaceutical companies” ensures that few scientists have been interested in looking at the potential dangers that livestock drugs may cause to the animals and thereby the people consuming the meat. With the introduction of Merck’s drug, Zilmax; however, the line between industry and scientists became even more blurred.
Not surprisingly, there has been concern that academic animal scientists have become so friendly with pharmaceutical corporations that they may be working more in the companies’ interests than in the interest of farmers, ranchers, and consumers.
Growth-promoting drugs for livestock have long been controversial.
Zilmax and other livestock-bulking drugs like ractopamine (in regular use in the U.S.) have been banned by the European Union, China, Taiwan, and over 100 other countries due to concerns about drug residue on human health.
.

chemicalfreelife

drscottisderivativefree:

.

FOOD CHEMICALS: 

Big Pharma + University Faculty on the Take = Dangerous Synthetic Animal-Bulking Drugs in the Meat Supply

.

New Video Raises Questions about Dangerous Food Additives

.

The Chronicle of Higher Education issued a report about animal scientists in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies like Merck. The report, “As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?”  highlights the relationship between corporations and scientists, where scientists act as salesmen for the companies’ animal drugs, “Convincing ranchers that [drugs like] Zilmax will transform their cattle into ‘bovine Schwarzeneggers’…”

Animal scientists employed by public universities help pharmaceutical companies “persuade farmers and ranchers to use antibiotics, hormones, and [beta-agonist] drugs like Zilmax to make their cattle grow bigger ever faster,” the report states.

The relationship is profitable for both the pharmaceutical corporations and the professors and universities. Universities increasingly depend on the industry for research grants, and many professors put money into their pockets by acting as consultants and promoters for the companies.

According to The Chronicle, “the close relationship between animal scientists and pharmaceutical companies” ensures that few scientists have been interested in looking at the potential dangers that livestock drugs may cause to the animals and thereby the people consuming the meat. With the introduction of Merck’s drug, Zilmax; however, the line between industry and scientists became even more blurred.

Not surprisingly, there has been concern that academic animal scientists have become so friendly with pharmaceutical corporations that they may be working more in the companies’ interests than in the interest of farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

Growth-promoting drugs for livestock have long been controversial.

Zilmax and other livestock-bulking drugs like ractopamine (in regular use in the U.S.) have been banned by the European Union, China, Taiwan, and over 100 other countries due to concerns about drug residue on human health.

.

chemicalfreelife

How Safe is Our Food? More and more countries are banning American food

america-wakiewakie:

More and more countries are banning imports of American food products for safety reasons.

Last week, Indonesia became the first country to halt imports of US beef following the discovery of an American dairy cow infected with mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The disease is fatal to cows and can cause a deadly brain disease in people who eat tainted beef.

“We will lift the ban as soon as the US can assure us its dairy cows are free of mad cow disease,” said Rusman Heriawan, Indonesia’s vice agriculture minister. “It could be one month or one year. It depends on how long it takes to resolve this case.”

One would think the US government would immediately test beef to make sure it’s safe. But the USDA, which regulates the test, administers it to less than 1% of slaughtered cows. Worse, until 2007 it was illegal for private beef producers to test their own cows for the disease! Larger meat companies feared that if smaller producers tested their meat and advertised it as safe from mad cow disease, they too might be forced to test all their cows—so they persuaded USDA to block individual producers from doing the test. In 2007 a federal judge said this practice could no longer stand.

The highest risk occurs if animals or humans eat infected brain or nerve tissue. Meat unconnected to bone, milk, and hooves are supposed to be safe, but who knows for sure? The ultimate source of mad cow, of course, is the filthy and disease-ridden (not to mention inhumane) conditions in CAFOs, or concentrated animal feedlot operations.

In February, Taiwan began refusing meat products from the US because they contain ractopamine, a leanness- and growth-promoting drug used widely in pork and beef production in the United States. Taiwan has a zero-tolerance policy for the drug.

Ractopamine is banned in 160 nations including Europe because it is responsible for hyperactivity and muscle breakdown in pigs, and a 10% increase in their mortality rate. It was banned in China after more than 1700 people were “poisoned” from eating American pigs that had been given ractopamine. The drug bears the warning label, “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask’’—yet somehow it is considered safe in human food. How is this possible?

Most of the world’s developed countries ban, or have at least placed limits on, genetically modified organisms. The European Union and its member states, as well as Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Brazil, and Paraguay all have restrictions or outright bans on the use or importation of genetically engineered seeds, plants, or foods. A detailed map with the specific products banned in Europe is available here.

This is one reason the California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative is so important. If California requires labeling products containing GMOs, it will be difficult for most manufacturers to create separate labels for their products sold in other states, so the labeling will become national. This is why we are trying to help the Right to Know Campaign raise one million dollars to drop a “money bomb” on Monsanto—to combat the anti-GMO propaganda and get this proposition passed in November.

Read more

Why Are Foods and Supplements Made for Children Packed with Hazardous Chemicals, Hidden Aspartame and GMOs?

'As a parent, one of the best gifts you can give your child is a strong nutritional start. The first years of life represent a time of rapid development, during which your child's language, cognitive, social and motor skills are developed.

During the first three years of life, the brain also grows at its fastest rate, and this represents a crucial window of development during which proper nutrition is essential.

If your child does not get healthy foods (and ideally breast milk) during this time, his future intelligence could be impacted.

A 2010 study1 revealed just how big an impact a poor nutritional start can have on your kids. Those who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age 3 had lower IQ scores at age 8.5. For each measured increase in processed foods, participants had a nearly two point decrease in IQ.

As you might suspect, the opposite also held true, with those eating healthier diets experiencing higher IQ levels.

As a parent, it is important to carefully consider the types of foods you give your child at home and in restaurants, as research has shown that repeated exposure builds taste preferences very quickly.

Potentially reduced IQ is not the only health risk your child faces if he eats a diet consisting mainly of processed foods and snacks.

A junk food diet can also set the stage for obesity, asthma, eczema, and a variety of allergies, behavioural problems—from hyperactivity to aggression—as well as inflammatory conditions and autoimmune diseases. In fact, many of the top diseases plaguing the United States are diet-related, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The National Institutes of Health even states that four of the six leading causes of death in the US are linked to unhealthy diets.

So the importance of proper nutrition simply cannot be overstated. Yet despite all this knowledge, food and beverage companies and even supplement makers are foisting products on children that are FAR from health-promoting, making your role as an educated parent all the more important…’

READ MORE

10 Methods of Mind Control

10 Methods of Mind Control

'The more one researches mind control, the more one will come to the conclusion that there is a coordinated script that has been in place for a very long time with the goal to turn the human race into non-thinking automatons.  For as long as man has pursued power over the masses, mind control has been orchestrated by those who study human behavior in order to bend large populations to the will of a small “elite” group.

Today, we have entered a perilous phase where mind control has taken on a physical, scientific dimension that threatens to become a permanent state if we do not become aware of the tools at the disposal of the technocratic dictatorship unfolding on a worldwide scale.

Modern mind control is both technological and psychological.  Tests show that simply by exposing the methods of mind control, the effects can be reduced or eliminated, at least for mind control advertising and propaganda.  More difficult to counter are the physical intrusions, which the military-industrial complex continues to develop and improve upon.’

READ MORE

Seven ways GMO toxicity affects animals, plants and soil

'1) GMOs disrupt digestion. Purveyors of GMOs claim that the human body is unable to tell the difference between GMOs and natural food. But a 2004 study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology tells a different story, having found that transgenic plant DNA actually persists in the human gastrointestinal tract upon consumption. According to this important study, which is the closest thing to a human clinical trial that has ever been conducted with GMOs, genetic material from GMOs actually transfers into the DNA of living bacteria in the gut, where it reproduces indefinitely. (http://www.anh-usa.org)

2) GMOs cause cancer. The most recent study to identify a link between GMO consumption and the formation of cancer, the so-called Seralini Study provides solid evidence showing that GMOs are processed by mammals far differently than natural foods. According to this study’s findings, rats fed a lifetime of GMOs sprayed with the toxic Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide developed serious tumors that took over their entire bodies. An earlier study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences arrived at similar results, with the addition of organ failure as a symptom of GMO consumption. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

3) GMOs increase herbicide use. Contrary to industry claims, GMOs have not reduced the need for chemical inputs, but rather greatly expanded it. According to a comprehensive, 16-year review of chemical use in conjunction with the advent of GMOs in 1996, researchers from Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources found that herbicide use has increased by an astounding 527 millions pounds since GMOs were first introduced. To make matters worse, Roundup, the chemical of choice for many GMOs, has been found to persist in soils, waterways, and other environmental nooks and crannies, and sometimes it even ends up contaminating water supplies. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

4) GMOs damage native species. A major point of contention with GMOs is that they can very easily pass their traits onto non-GMO, organic, and native crops and other plants, effectively destroying their very integrity permanently. Hundreds of farmers have actually been sued by Monsanto and other GMO giants over the years after their crops were inadvertently contaminated by GMOs. GMOs are also responsible for killing off bees, bats, butterflies, and other pollinators, whose bodies are unable to handle the onslaught of altered DNA and chemicals that are characteristic of GMO technologies. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse.html)

5) GMOs pollute the environment. Mainstream scientists and industry spokespersons often gloat about the supposed environmental benefits of GMOs. But the truth of the matter is that GMOs and the chemicals used to grow them are a major source of environmental pollution. A 2011 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that the Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) bacteria engineered into Monsanto’s GM corn can now be found in hundreds of streams and waterways throughout the U.S. Midwest. Another study published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry revealed that Roundup herbicide is also present in many waterways and groundwater sources throughout America as well. (http://naturalsociety.com)

6) GMOs deplete soil minerals, destroy beneficial bacteria. The presence of Roundup, Bt bacteria, and other GMO byproducts in our water and soil would only be half as bad if these toxins merely persisted as innocuous pollutants. But studies have shown that these chemicals actually degrade and deplete soils of vital minerals and beneficial bacteria, both of which protect crops from pests, viruses, and other threatening elements. Glyphosate, the active component in Roundup, also does not biodegrade, which means it is continually accumulating in the environment without restraint, perpetually altering soil composition and contaminating natural resources. (http://www.psrast.org/soilecolart.htm)

7) GMOs spawn crop-destroying ‘superweeds,’ ‘superbugs.’ The basic premise behind how GMOs work portends that artificially engineering crops with resistance to certain chemicals and exposures that would otherwise harm or kill them can improve yields and protect the environment. And this built-in resistance has allowed farmers to indiscriminately spray chemicals like Roundup on their crops without worrying about killing them. But this system is now failing, as the weeds and pests targeted by GMO technologies have mutated and developed resistance to crop chemicals and Bt toxin. As a result, pestilence and disease is on the rise due to GMOs, which spells eventual disaster for the food supply. (http://grist.org)

To learn more about the dangers of GMOs, visit the Institute for Responsible Technology:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

Common Modern Foods Which Cause DNA Damage

'How important is it what you put in your mouth, after all? How much man made, toxic lab food can one ingest before negative symptoms show up? How much more sickness does this society have to endure before we finally stay united and demand more from our food system, through the choices we make every day?

A brilliant researcher named Francis Pottenger might have an answer and the proof humanity needs these days to fully grasp the importance of HEALTHY FOOD. His amazing discoveries have contributed to the developing, new and fascinating science of epigenetics we learn about today.

What Did Pottenger’s Famous “Cat Study” Prove?

In 1930, Pottenger began a study with the intention to find out more about the nutrient quality or difference of raw versus cooked meatas well as raw versus pasteurized milk. And he wanted to know if meat and milk, when modified by high heat, had an impact on growth and development. During the ten years of the study, nine hundred cats were studied, in order to not only see the short term effects of the food, but also the influence the cats’ diet and health status would have on their kittens over three generations. The results of this study were stunning: a seemingly simple modification in diet – in this case, consuming raw meat and raw milk versus heated and cooked meat and milk – can affect cats’ health over four generations!!

The conclusions of the study can be summed up in the following:

  • Physical degeneration caused by a poor diet in the mother is inherited in the offspring and passed on through the third generation. But when a mother’s diet is nutritious, not only does she benefit with good health, so, too, do her offspring.
  • Pottenger discovered that poor health could, indeed, be reversed. The third generation of cats that developed health problems from the entirely cooked diet was the proof in this experiment. Pottenger started to feed these cats raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. What he noticed was that with the first generation of cats as well as with the three successive generations of kittens they produced – each kitten was healthier than the prior one.

So, what Pottenger discovered 70 years ago and what ancestral cultures have been knowing for centuries is that: The food we eat each day influences illness or wellness, not only in ourselves, but in our children, grandchildren, even our great-grandchildren, born or unborn.’

READ MORE

Political and Corporate Elite Shun GM Food on Their own Plate

'With a sad twist of irony, corporate and government elite dine on safe, organic food while the masses, those very people who are supposedly represented and protected by their governments, are poisoned by hidden genetically modified organisms, pesticides and dangerous contaminants. The presidential family demands organic food in their kitchen, yet behind closed doors, shake hands with the biotech industry. China’s top brass is fed by an exclusive, gated organic garden while the rest of the population consumes GM food, steroid contaminated meat and dairy laced with melamine. Even Monsanto’s own employee’s command non-genetically modified food in their canteen. Access to clean, organic and healthy food is not a given right anymore — it has become a political battleground with the average citizen suffering the loss.

White House double-take

While First Lady Michelle Obama digs up the White House lawn to plant an organic garden, her husband promotes a GMO agenda within his administration. “You know, in my household, over the last year we have just shifted to organic,” she said in a New Yorker interview during Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Organic produce from the garden feeds the Obama family and visiting dignitaries alike. Seems okay so far. But then take a look at Obama’s laundry-list of presidential appointed positions with biotech ties: USDA head Roger Beachy, a former director at Monsanto, FDA food safety czar Michael Taylor, one-time vice president for public policy at Monsanto, Commissioner of the USDA Tom Vilsack who created the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership. Under President Obama, 10 new GM crops have been approved for ‘safe consumption.’

Spiked fences protect organic gardens from the people

The political elite in China enjoy the safest of food — organic produce, grass-fed beef from Inner Mongolia, rice free of pesticides, chemicals or genetically modified organisms. Compare this with the food supply of ordinary citizens that is laden with pesticides, industrial chemicals and GMOs. Children have become sick and died from tainted baby formula and milk products. Blindness and death have resulted from adults consuming fake liquor. Yet Chinese leaders have their own protected food sources of the highest quality. In Beijing, an organic farm is surrounded by a six-foot spiked fence while security personnel guard the entrance. The garden produces food for top-notch officials only. Beidaihe Sanitorium, a seaside haven for retired party cadres, exclusively uses a specialty rice that is organic and free of GMOs. As for the public, they can purchase the small remaining surplus of the grain at 15 times the cost of regular rice. All the while, the government continues to approve GMOs and harmful chemicals for general consumption.

GMO-free meals at Monsanto

Remember the notice at a Monsanto staff canteen stating the decision “to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.” According to Tony Coombes, the company’s spokesperson, “Yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice.”

Evidently the average citizen is not allowed the same courtesy of choice considering GMOs have infiltrated the food supply and are not labeled in North America. Only those who can afford the price tag of organic food are able to protect themselves from harmful contaminants. As for the rest of the population, they are the ones who will suffer the devastating health consequences of a corrupt system.

Sources for this article include:

“Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barack Obama” Jon Rappoport. Infowars, September 24, 2012. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://www.infowars.com

“White House Will Not say Where It Gets Its Meat (And I Don’t Blame Them)” David Kirby, Huff Post Green, April 20, 2010. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com

“Does Monsanto Man Mitt Romney Secretly Eat Organic?” Tom Philpott. MotherJones, September 26, 2012. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://www.motherjones.com

“In China, what you eat tells who you are” Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://articles.latimes.com

“Amid milk scare, China’s elite eat all-organic” Associated Press, NBC News, September 24, 2008. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26874854/#.UGrObal9mlI

“GM food banned in Monsanto canteen” Michael McCarthy, The Independent, December 22, 1999. Retrieved on October 2, 2012 from: http://www.independent.co.uk’

Nov 6

Controlling Our Food | A Documentary On Genetically Modified Foods GMO’s (by greggdurham)

'On March 11, 2008 a new documentary was aired on French television, a documentary that Americans won't ever see. The gigantic bio-tech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.

Genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO). Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation.

GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. Animal products have also been developed, although as of July 2010 none are currently on the market. In 2006 a pig was controversially engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene. Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.’

The World Health Organization is Taking Cash Handouts from Junk Food Giants

'The World Health Organization (WHO) is the United Nation’s “public health” arm and has 194 member states. While its official mission is “the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health“, it is also clear that it works according to a specific agenda, one that laid out by the world elite and the organizations that are part of it. In the article entitled ‘Contagion’ or How Disaster Movies “Educate” the Masses, we’ve seen how the WHO was involved in the promotion of mass vaccination campaigns following (bogus) disease scares, of civilian camps, of the bar-coding of individuals and so forth.

More proof of the WHO’s “elite bias” has been recently uncovered by a study: The organization has been taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the world’s biggest pushers of unhealthy foods such as Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Unilever. It is relying on these companies for advice on how to fight obesity.. which is the equivalent of asking a drug dealer for advice on how stay off drugs and NOT buy his product.

Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Unilever are not simply “food companies, they are gigantic conglomerates that produce and distribute an enormous proportion of processed foods across the world. In the article entitled Irrational Consumerism (or The Few Companies Who Feed the World), I described how only a few mega-conglomerates own most of the world’s brands of processed foods.’

Everything is rigged - health, politics, finance and more - but here’s how to beat the system

'I've been pondering this topic for weeks, trying to find the words to communicate the full impact of this realization to which we are all increasingly awakening. Everything is rigged… the stock market, the news, the food, your taxes, public schools, the health care system, and on and on. Even Lance Armstrong's cycling victories were all apparently rigged (with doping), we're now finding out.

But what do I mean by “rigged” specifically? All these systems and industries are rigged to cheat you, to suppress you, and ultimately to suppress your human potential.’

(Source: naturalnews.com)

Effects of Feeding GMO Potatoes To Rats (Pt. 1) (by DebunkerSam)

'Dr. Arpad Pusztai discusses his research on the effects of feeding GMO potatoes to rats.'

Food Prices Rising: Reaching Near Emergency Levels, Riots Expected

'According to a group of researchers, their mathematical model using food prices can predict social unrest and riots. Given the drought and rampant speculation, this may bode ill for several regions in the world. Food prices have been rising for quite some time, and aren’t showing any sign of slowing.

People raise their voices and go to arms for reasons too complicated to address here altogether, but it would be folly to leave hunger out of the equation. The spark may be an anti-Islam film or an incident of police brutality, but Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts says that it’s high food prices that create “the range of conditions in which the tiniest spark can lead to riots.”

History of Accurate Predictions

The NECSI has received attention of late for its accurate predictions of food price behavior, most notably those showing spikes in food prices that coincided with the 2007-2008 riots.

They even submitted findings to the U.S. government—four days before Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian produce vendor, set himself on fire and, many say, catalyzed the Arab Spring.’

(Source: activistpost.com)