Article from Max Goldberg: GMO Impossible Burger Tests Positive for Glyphosate

Another article in the never ending story about the importance of food, and what’s in it….

Article from Max Goldberg:
As Beyond Meat’s very successful IPO is bringing a lot of attention to the alt-protein category, it is important to take a look at what exactly are in these food products.

One popular name in this space is the Impossible Burger, a product we first wrote about in 2017 when Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents uncovered that the FDA disagreed with the company’s safety assessments of the burger’s main ingredient — soy leghemoglobin. However, the company continued selling it to the public anyhow without informing consumersabout the FDA’s very serious concerns.

The issue this time around with the Impossible Burger is the amount of glyphosate that it contains.

According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion (ppb).

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Recent court cases, including the $2 billion judgment to a couple whose non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup, have provided more evidence of how harmful this chemical is.

So, the Impossible Burger not only contains a genetically-modified protein that has never been in the human diet until a few years ago, but it has also tested positive for glyphosate.

Additionally, company founder Pat Brown wrote the other day that the Impossible Burger will now be using GMO soy in its burgers. Genetically-modified soy is sprayed with Roundup and is one of Monsanto’s most important products.

“We are shocked to find that the Impossible Burger can have up to 11x higher levels of glyphosate residues than the Beyond Meat burger according to these samples tested. This new product is being marketed as a solution for ‘healthy’ eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous. Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to alter the gene function of over 4,000 genes in the livers, kidneys and cause severe organ damage in rats. I am gravely concerned that consumers are being misled to believe the Impossible Burger is healthy,” said Zen Honeycutt, Executive Director of Moms Across America.

If you’re looking to switch to a vegan diet or consume less meat, there are numerous organic meatless options out there, such as Hilary’s Veggie Burgers or Don Lee Farms, products that are not genetically modified and whose ingredients have not been sprayed with glyphosate.

While the Impossible Burger may be generating a lot of hype and is Instagram-worthy because of how it “bleeds”, it carries elevated levels of glyphosate when compared to its non-organic peers, and its key ingredients are not found in nature but are manufactured in a laboratory.

Is eating the Impossible Burger a risk worth taking?

As the Institute for Responsible Technology has pointed out, GMOs carry many health risks.

But maybe Steven Molino (who now Tweets under @steven_molino) can answer this for us.

On Twitter, he said that 20 minutes after eating his first Impossible Burger at Bareburger, he “went into anaphylactic shock & taken to ER. Never happened to me before…” His Tweet about going into “anaphylactic shock” has since been deleted.

Vaccinföreläsning med Ann-Charlotte Stewart

Just nu är det lite vaccintema på mina blogginlägg, det finns mycket att säga, och det är viktigt att sprida information om vad vacciner kan ställa till med. Nu tänkte jag dela Ann-Charlotte Stewarts föreläsning om vacciner, hon är specialist på Gardasil, men har en hel del att säga om andra vacciner också. Föreläsningen är uppdelad på fyra olika videos, här är dom:

Här är texten som är publicerad på youtube om den här delen av föreläsningen:
“Ann-Charlotte Stewart är doktor i medicinsk genetik och disputerade 1993 i ämnet papillomvirus och livmoderhalscancer. Hon har en postdoc i USA, och forskade på livmoderhalscancer/HPV vid University of New Mexico. Ann-Charlotte Stewart berättar om varför hon hoppade av mitt i en lovande karriär. Vi tycks bli allt sjukare med degenerativa sjukdomar och autoimmuna sjukdomar. Ann-Charlotte berättar vad som hände historiskt då kostnaden för vacciner ökade, liksom om de stadigt växande biverkningarna vilket i förlängningen löstes genom att vaccinbolagen fick immunitet mot skadestånd. Kända biverkningar av vaccin. Vi får se utdrag från bipacksedeln av GMO-vaccin/Hepatit B. Barn till och med dör inom timmar/dagar efter vaccination. “Trots att vi har den största konsumtionen av antibiotika och vacciner hos alla grupper av barn historiskt så är våra barn fetare, sjukare och dummare än någonsin” citat Dr Tim O´Shea.”

Youtubetext del 2:
“Ann-Charlotte pratar om det allmänna barnvaccinationsprogrammet, hur det ser ut – visste du att det är frivilligt? Vad innehåller vacciner? Varför innehåller vaccin antigener och adjuvanser? Ann-Charlotte kommer in på aluminium. Tiomersal och svininfluensan 2009, samt autism. Är vacciner säkra och effektiva?”

Youtubetext del 3:
“Är det verkligen vaccinernas förtjänst att dödsfallen har gått ner i olika sjukdomar som vi vaccinerar mot som kikhosta, polio, mässling. Ann-Charlotte går på djupet vad gäller HPV och HPV-vaccin, som hon har forskat inom. Gardasil ger många svåra biverkningar, även dödsfall. Örebro Läns Landsting ändrar på sin hemsida angående Gardasil på Ann-Charlottes anmodan. Vaccinerade versus ovaccinerade. Vad det gäller mikrober så är miljön är allt!”

Youtubetext del 4:
“Vad försvagar immunförsvaret? Vad stärker immunförsvaret? Vad behöver vi och vad ska vi göra för att få bättre immunförsvar och bättre hälsa? Lästips för den som vill fördjupa sig i ämnet.”

För att hitta mer info om Ann-Charlotte Stewart kan man få tag på henne via hennes Facebookprofil
googlar man på hennes namn så finns det tyvärr en massa hemsidor med svartmålning och misskreditering, VOF-folket försöker göra vad dom kan för att mörka och gömma undan sån här information.

Article about “nutritional drinks and shakes”…

To eat nutritional, healthy food is really important, and even more important for people that are very sick – I can’t understand how this is allowed…


APRIL 12, 2016

Carrol Krause, a former reporter for the Herald-Times of BloomingtonIndiana, had to retire from her journalism career because of an ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2014. Before she passed away in February, she wrote a blog titled ‘Stories by Carrol’ highlighting the best and the worst of her last days.

A few months ago she started having digestive issues and could no longer eat normal food. What hospice workers brought her as meal replacements horrified her.

Krause writes: “Hospice had the very best of intentions, [but] the stuff they sent over was not real FOOD. In fact, I’m outraged at the idea that they feed this stuff to dying people.”

What the hospice provided to Krause was a bag full of products by Ensure: pudding, shakes, and a drink that pretends to be apple juice.

All three are full of chemicals with about as much actual nutritional value as most commercial junk food, and these drinks are meant to be the nutritional lifeline for people who are extremely sick.

Ensure is owned by Abbott Nutrition, one of the worst examples of a Big Food corporation masquerading as a healthy alternative you’ll ever see. The company has deep ties to the medical industry and as such you can find their products in just about every hospital today, which is bad news for millions of patients who are just trying to get healthier.

The Truth About Ensure

Ensure is a brand by Abbott that makes medical “nutritional shakes and drinks.” It makes big claims to customers such as “#1 Doctor Recommended”  and “Worldwide Leader in Nutritional Science” but in reality their products are as far away from a healthy meal as you can get. Sadly, these products are often given to patients in extremely poor health, who need proper nutrition the most. Instead, when consuming these products they are receiving the following: preservatives, fillers, and chemicals.

To make matters worse, Abbott Nutrition is a member of the notorious pro-GMO organization the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and to date has given nearly a million dollars to fight against GMO labeling in the United States.

Does this sound like the type of company whose products you should be feeding your loved ones? After you see these products and their ingredients you’ll have the answer.

Ensure Clear™ Therapeutic Nutrition

The front of the package for Ensure Clear portrays an orange drink with an apple next to it, the back of the package is quick to verify, however: this product “contains no apple juice” or any juice. Instead its two main ingredients are water and sugar. It also contains the following:

“I Wouldn’t Feed This Stuff to a Dying Animal” – Terminal Hospice Patient Exposes Truth About Ensure Nutrition Drinks


Toxins, Chemicals, and Pesticides

Corn Syrup Solids are made of dehydrated corn syrup, which is 100% glucose, a type of sugar that adds to the risk of obesity. Corn syrup is also almost always made from GMO corn, and has been linked to diabetes, and cancer.

Cupric sulfate is actually a pesticide and fungicide, that is toxic, and can cause gastrointestinal issues, anemia, and even death at high doses. It is also genotoxic, meaning it can cause the cells to mutate due to genetic damage.

Chromium chloride is toxic and has negative affects on the reproductive system for both men and women, stomach problems, abnormal bleeding, and ulcers.

Sodium Selenite is a toxic ingredient produced as a byproduct of copper metal refining. Yet, it is often labeled as a “nutrient.” The Environmental Protection Agency has classified it as dangerous.

Natural and Artificial Flavors can include a row of different chemicals, often derived from inorganic sources, and are harmful to health, adding to the contributions for illnesses in the whole body, including different types of cancers.

Synthetic Vitamins:

While our bodies, especially when sick, do require a lot of vitamins, there is a huge difference between natural vitamins derived from food or natural sources, versus synthetic vitamins. Unfortunately, the vitamins contained in Ensure products and other commercialized “health” foods and supplements are almost always synthetic, and are manufactured with chemicals. Generally speaking, when a new study comes out that claims that some vitamin is toxic at high levels, it is because only the synthetic version of it has been studied, yet it gets lumped together with natural vitamins.

Synthetics do not get absorbed by the body in the same way as natural vitamins, because they have been “isolated” – they are separated from the entire vitamin complex and trace minerals and enzymes. What a synthetic vitamin is lacking, the body tries to make up for by itself, and depletes its existing nutrients in the process, as explained byOrganic Consumers.

“This process results in an overall negative health effect while minimizing any gains that could have been achieved by the supplement,” according to “Nutri-Con: The Truth about Vitamins & Supplements” report by The Hippocrates Health Institute.

Other ingredients include:

Dl-alpha-tocopherol acetate is a synthetic kind of Vitamin E. Not only is the synthetic kind only 12% as effective as natural Vitamin E, it is often created as a byproduct of  a petrochemical dependent manufacturing process. It also has been associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, DNA damage, and other adverse effects.

Ferrous sulfate: a synthetic from of iron, and can cause constipation, nausea, allergic reactions, and gastrointestinal issues.

Niacinamide is a synthetic form of vitamin B3 and its list of side effects includes a few dozen of conditions, including liver failure.

Manganese sulfate is made “from the reaction between manganese oxide and sulfuric acid” and is often is used in paints and varnishes, fertilizers and fungicides, and ceramic, besides medicines  (manganese itself is a mineral).

Calcium Pantothenate is a synthetic substance made from pantothenic acid, trying to mimic natural vitamin B5.

Vitamin A Palmitate is a synthetic form of vitamin A, which like many others above can cause liver damage and stomach issues.

Zinc Sulfate is in organic form of zinc, and can be toxic to cells, as well as dangerous to the environment.

Sodium molybdate is a chemical form of sodium, and it has shown to have negative effects on fertility in animals.

Other synthetic vitamins are also included, and additional ingredients are: Whey Protein Isolate (likely from cows fed GMO corn), Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid (a synthetic form of vitamin C that is usually inorganic and hard for the body to digest), Folic acid, Biotin, and Vitamin D3.

This is just the ingredient list of one of Ensure’s top products, and as you can see it’s basically nutritionally worthless compared to real, honest food.

Carrol’s Call for Action

“Soup is good food. Pudding can be good food too, if it has real milk and egg in it… But this swill (I don’t know what other word to call it) from Hospice is completely vile,” Krause wrote in her blog in September 2015. “It’s not real food, only a collection of starches, sugars, artificial flavors and nutritional powders all mixed into water.”

Like many people are beginning to realize, to pretend that Ensure and similar drinks are real food can be dangerous to a person’s health, Krause wrote:

“Maybe someone who spends their life eating at fast-food joints wouldn’t object to eating Ensure products, but I do, because I know the difference between real food and fake food…

“I wouldn’t feed this stuff to a dying animal, let alone a dying human being. If you agree, let the hospital management know. Or snipe at them via social media until they begin to pay attention. I think it’s time for a food fight!


For information on the true history of cancer and natural treatment options, you can check out ‘The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest,’ airing for free online from April 12 – 20. Click here to sign up for free.

Original article and credits: by 

Artikel av Stig Bengmark om majs och hirs (28 mars 2016)

Jag slutade äta gluten/vete för flera år sedan, och äter mindre och mindre av andra spannmålsprodukter, försöker hålla mig uppdaterad om vad som gäller, med hjälp av såna här artiklar…


Av alla plantor är kanske majs den som växtförädlarna förstört allra mest. Det är också den planta som allra oftast är förstörd av GMO.

Skärmavbild 2017-11-27 kl. 21.39.37.png

En gång i tiden var majskolven mycket liten och innehöll mycket mer av många olika nyttigheter än vad dagens ”överförädlade” majs gör. Som vanligt var det girighet och kravet på ökad avkastning som drev utvecklingen till den produkt vi har idag. Idag är, enligt min mening, majs otjänlig som föda för människor. Jag skulle gärna se att den inte ens används som djurföda – framför allt för miljöns skull. Varje år skövlas stora arealer av regnskog för att tillfredsställa behovet av majs som föda till djur, främst inom kött- och mjölkproduktionen.

Skärmavbild 2017-11-27 kl. 21.39.44

Som denna bild visar är världsproduktionen av majs redan mycket omfattande och den beräknas fortsätta öka i rask takt också under kommande år – detta till fortsatt tilltagande stor skada för miljön. En drastisk reduktion i efterfrågan av kött och mejerivaror är faktiskt det enda som kan stoppa denna utveckling.

Tomma kalorier – inget annat!

Majsmjöl är, liksom rismjöl och potatismjöl, bara tomma kalorier – ”skräpmjöl” – som vi alla gärna kan avstå ifrån. Dessa mjölsorter har alla oacceptabelt högt GI:

Majs och majsprodukter:
Majsmjöl 97, majsbröd 92, cornflakes 121, majschips/nachos 105, popcorn 79

Ris och risprodukter:
Riskakor 117, risnudlar 131, snabbris 128, råris 81, puffat ris 132

Chips 77, potatismos 118, potatismjöl 110

Oväntat och till min stora besvikelse så talar mycket för att också ett annat sädesslag skall undvikas, ett sädesslag som tyvärr många uppfattar som nyttigt: hirs. Hirs är tveksamt av flera skäl:

• Det har ett jämförelsevis högt GI – 101.

• Det innehåller rikligt med saponiner, känt för att öka tarmläckage och därmed tarmens genomsläpplighet av gifter t.ex. bakterietoxiner som endotoxin, men faktiskt också rester av eller t.o.m. hela bakterier.

• Det är rikligt på fytinsyra/fytat – en substans som är känd för att binda nyttiga mineraler som järn, kalcium, zink och magnesium – och minskar därmed kroppens förmåga till upptag av viktiga mineraler.

• Det framhålls också som nackdel att hirs har ett mycket lågt innehåll av den viktiga mineralen jod.

Majs – värstingarnas värsting

Majs är sällsynt kaloririk och ofta sätter man till stora mängder socker. En studie av kaloriinnehållet i bio-popcorn vid Londons många biografer visade att alla strutar/påsar utom en innehöll mer än 1000 kalorier – d.v.s. en kalorimängd som motsvarar hälften eller mer av rekommenderat daglig kaloriintag för t.ex. en femtonåring. Den mängd socker som ofta tillsätts ökar faktiskt inte bara mängden kalorier utan bidrar också till majsens förmåga att inducera förhöjd inflammation i kroppen. Tyvärr är det också så att popcorn inte längre bara äts av barn och vuxna vid enstaka biobesök, utan faktiskt ganska regelbundet hemma i TV-soffan – i många familjer är det ett uppskattat inslag i bl.a. fredagsmys.

Majs är rikt på proteotoxinet zein – mer känd som ingrediens vid framställning av plaster
Men, det är inte kaloriinnehållet som gör majs till en ”värsting” – den egenskapen har många andra livsmedel också. Nej, det som gör majs till en värsting är dess innehåll av ett gluten- och kaseinliknande proteotoxin, kallat zein. Zein är ganska okänt i hälsokretsar, men desto mer välkänt inom plastindustrin. Zein används bl.a. för tillverkning av diverse plastprodukter som t.ex. för beläggning för att hindra läckage i pappersmuggar, för tätning av tyger, till produktion av knappar och, precis som gluten i det förgångna, till klister.

Zein i kosten har visat sig ha katastrofalt inflytande på aktiveringen av signalsubstanser, speciellt serotonin och melatonin och faktiskt också epinephrin och dopamin – alla sammanfattade under begreppet monoaminer. Zein blockerar inlagringen i kroppens celler, speciellt i hjärnans celler, av den essentiella aminosyran tryptophan – en essentiell aminosyra är en substans som kroppen inte själv kan tillverka utan den måste tillföras via kosten.

Tryptophan finns rikligt i bl.a. linfrö, bovete, bananer, sura körsbär och mörk choklad. Det är välkänt att för att tryptophan skall fungera optimalt i kroppen så krävs också bl.a. rik tillgång på mineral som magnesium och vitaminer som vitamin B6. Källor till dessa är:

Skärmavbild 2017-11-27 kl. 21.39.55.png
Monoaminer som serotonin och melatonin är ytterst viktiga för välbefinnandet

Serotonin – ”den lugna själens signalsubstans” – och melatonin – ”dygnsrytmens och sömnen signalsubstans” – bildas bland annat i hjärnan. Det är välkänt att vid flera neuropsykiatriska tillstånd är aktiveringen av dessa monoaminer mycket bristfällig.

En mycket intressant studie på djur visar att inlagring i cellerna av den viktiga substansen tryptophan reduceras kraftigt av olika proteotoxiner: mycket starkt av zein, påtagligt av gluten (vete, råg och korn) och kasein (mejerivaror) men obetydligt av laktoalbumin. Intag av växtprotein däremot förbättrar om än ganska obetydligt (1) denna situation – se bild nedan. Minskning i tillgänglighet av tryptophan i hjärnan åtföljs alltid av motsvarande minskningar i syntes/aktivering av de ”livsviktiga” signalsubstanserna.

Skärmavbild 2017-11-27 kl. 21.40.03

Bristfällig monoamin-funktion har iakttagits vid bl.a. flera olika neuropsykiatriska tillstånd

Brist på/bristande balans av monoaminer – speciellt i hjärnan – är faktiskt välkänt vid en rak neuropsykiatriska sjukdomar som depression, ADHD, Schizofreni och Parkinsons sjukdom m.fl. – sjukdomar som dessutom är starkt associerade med dålig tarmfunktion (orsakad av dåliga matvanor) och dåligt upptag av en mängd olika substanser bl. a. vitamin D, vitamin K och tryptophan. Mitt hopp är att rekonditionering av tarmfloran med min synbiotika i framtiden skall bidra till ökad frisättning av viktiga substanser som magnesium, olika vitaminer och framförallt tryptophan, och därigenom påtagligt förbättra situationen.

Jag är övertygad att vi alla mår bra av att avstå från majs, majsprodukter och säkert också hirs. Särskilt bör det gälla de som har neuropsykiatriska sjukdomar,och kanske alldeles särskilt de som har bokstavssjukdomar. Amfetamin, som ofta användes i behandling av ADHD, har en molekylär struktur som faktiskt påminner mycket om tryptophan – kanske är det som tryptophan-ersättning som den har sina effekter.

Det nyttiga sitter i skalen

Att kvoten är hög mellan skal och mjöl är viktigt – det är främst i skalet som alla nyttigheter sitter. Mjölet är mest tomma kalorier och av det vill vi ha så litet som möjligt.  I Mariannes och mitt kök är t.ex. majs, hirs och ris ”portade”. Uteslutna är också gluten-stinna och överförädlade råg, vete och korn. Vi använder sedan länge bl.a. mycket quinoa och bovete. Men, tyvärr ser vi växtförädlarnas spår också på dessa – speciellt quinoa har genom åren blivit allt ”mjöligare”. Nu tågar våra förfäders säd in med stormsteg – ADT-konsortiet med Amaranth, Durra, Teff – urkraft! Vi, människan, homo sapiens, kommer ursprungligen från Afrika och nu, några tusen år senare, kommer också våra förfäders sädesslag till oss.

Kära växtförädlare, vi vet att ni redan idag har kastat er över också dessa sädesslag men får vi be er: låt dem för vår hälsas skull få vara i fred.

• Choi S et al Physiol Behov 2009;98:156-162 (finns här)

En text om miljögifter, GMO, frihandelsavtal osv (från Ingela Sjöquist + Sanna Ehdin)

Från Ingela Sjöquist:

Allvarligt talat, stanna upp en stund pls. Var på Homeopatisk kongress i helgen. Jättekul att träffa kollegor från hela landet och kul att fira Dcg som fyllde 70 år med allt vad det innebar. Intressant att lyssna på 4 duktiga Homeopater Peter Fisher (Engelska kungahusets homeopat) Dr Klaus Kustermann Tyskland (Specialläkare i Allmänmedicin, Magisterexamen i Naturmedicin sedan 36 år) Robert Uitto (Homeopat sedan 35 år, engagerad i EU frågor när de gäller Homeopati osv.) Evangelos Andreopoulus klassisk Homeopat sedan 30 år, ursprungligen från Grekland. Har utbildning både från Grekland och Tyskland.

Nu kommer det märkliga. Man skulle ju kunna tro att vi mest diskuterade Homeopati men det gjorde vi inte. Vi diskuterade mest miljögifter och vad som händer i våra kroppar i form av olika obalanser och sjukdomar pga alla dessa toxiner. Om vi backar så var det inte riktigt lika allvarligt bara för 10 år sedan. Visste ni att var och en av oss har 130.000 (och uppåt) olika miljögifter i oss numera. Det är sanslöst mycket och kommer givetvis att få fruktansvärda konsekvenser i framtiden. Vi ser biverkningar på enstaka medel men vi har ingen aning om hur den kemiska cocktailen verkar i våra kroppar. Cancern har tex ökat och kommer att öka lavinartat om giftspridningen får fortsätta. Det kan ta mellan 5-20 år för att sprida en cancer i kroppen och innan den är synlig i vårdens mätningar. På det toppas alla mediciner och att många har stora näringsbrister pga av all konstgödsling där man inte återgäldar viktiga näringsämnen, så den maten vi äter har inte samma näring som förr.

Vad kan vi göra åt detta? Jag sprider så mycket information som jag kan. Skriver på allt jag kan för att stoppa eländet. Vi skulle behöva medvetna politiker som kan ta tag i detta, men det är en Maktindustri fråga där pengar styr mer än människors välbefinnande dessvärre.

Vad vet ni om GMO och Frihandelsavtal tex?
Lägger in ett inlägg jag hade i en hälsogrupp för ett tag sedan om detta.
Se upp för Frihandelsavtal. Det finns i USA och är på väg hit om vi inte stoppar det. Bli medvetna om detta och påverka så gott ni kan. GMO- och hormonuppfödning, farliga kemikalier och klordoppad kyckling, det kan bli verklighet även här i Europa om storföretagen får som de vill. Går avtalet igenom får vi framgent äta GMO vare sig vi vill det eller inte. Frihandelsavtalet är något som främst kommer att gynna USA, då de länge har velat komma in på den europeiska marknaden, men tack vara EUs strängare regler angående tillväxthormoner, antibiotika och andra kemikalier i livsmedelsproduktionen så har det varit tufft, USA har som bekant en mycket generösare användning av dessa ämnen. Men om frihandelsavtalet som just nu förhandlas bakom stängda dörrar utan inflytande av våra folkvalda eller medborgarna i EU, träder i kraft kan allt detta vara ett minne blott. Och den amerikanska livsmedelsindustrin kan få en mycket större tillgång till den Europeiska marknaden, varken om vi vill det eller inte. Detta kommer innebära att marknaden blir ännu tuffare för de som vill föda upp djur utan antibiotika, kemikalier eller hormoner och är något som klart främst kommer att drabba de uppfödare med hårdast internationella uppfödningsregler och på sikt även leda till ett mer liberalt regelverk även i Sverige om vår livsmedelsindustri ska överleva. Detta är en dålig nyhet för både oss människor och för miljön. Då just hälsa och miljö inte brukar vara det som prioriteras högst, då det viktigaste hos dessa industribjässar oftast brukar vara hur stor vinsten blir. Så klordoppad kyckling och hormonuppfödda djur kommer kanske blir mer vardag även här i Sverige inom en snar framtid om EU och USA får bestämma.

Alla som vill dela och sprida detta får göra det i mitt namn. Jag tror det är viktigt att information kommer fram till så många människor som möjligt. Och det är så många mer än jag som reagerar och har kunskaper om detta. Tillsammans har vi kraft att påverka. Varsegoda! Sprid sprid sprid!

Och Sanna Ehdin Anandala:

“Igår tog demokratin slut i Sverige. Den rödgröna majoriteten svek det svenska folket när Landsbygdsminister Sven-Erik Bucht röstade ja för att genmodifierad gröda godkänns för försäljning i EU… Dela, dela tack så fler får veta – o tryck gärna gilla om du OGILLAR deras beslut!!

Trots att svenska folket säger nej till GMO och att mycket forskning visar att GMO till försöksdjur, grisar och kor ger mindre lever- och hjärtstorlek, inflammation i tarmen, ett svagare immunsystem OCH att pesticidproducerande gener kan gå över i tarmslemhinnan och producera kemikalierna där. Vi står nu inför ett fruktansvärt ohälsoscenario för människor, fjäderfän och boskap, och med skador på naturen, massiv död av bin, fjärilar och andra insekter och djur. En tyst vår på riktigt…

Men det värsta är att de sa ja, fastän absoluta majoriteten av svenska folket inte vill ha GMO. Miljöpartiet hur tänker ni? Hur kan de rödgröna svika så?
Det är helt tydligt: de svenska myndigheterna (och instanser som Livsmedelsverket) värnar inte om vår hälsa utan om följer de globala företagens vilja och intressen. Monsanto har drivit GMO-frågan hårt och varit arga på européernas motstånd.

Med all tydlighet är vi på väg bort från demokrati och nu går det snabbt. En lite global elit vill ta över allt i en One World Government, som enbart följer de globala jättarnas intressen.

Vi har tio år på oss att vända detta innan det är för sent. Det vi kan göra är att skapa en Folkrörelse för Positivt motstånd, och se till att göra främst dessa fem saker:

1. Dela denna info och berätta så att fler vet om det. Lyft fram vad de gör i ljuset!
2. Rösta med plånboken och köp inget från de globala storföretagen! Dessutom för det 90% av pengarna från din region och ut ur Sverige. Handla lokalt odlat och inget av den processade industrimaten etc. Vi kvinnor står för 70% av dagligvaruköpen så vi besitter den reella makten.

3. Sätta press på affärerna: tala om för din lokale handlare att du slutar handla där om de tar in GMO-odlad eller tillverkad mat.

4. Vägra negativa nyheter! Gå inte på all skit de pumpar på oss om elände, våld, terrorism, sjukdomar, fientligheter och konflikter som att man inte kan lite på nån etc. Det är bara en del av strategin att stressa folk – för i rädsla kan man inte växa. Härska och söndra sattes i system av romarna… De vill göra oss så rädda att storpappa i form av “one world government” ska framstå som bra lösning. Bedrägeri.

5. Varje dag gå in i hjärtats energi, vare sig du ser på något vackert, delar kärleksfulla ord eller känslor med någon, leker med ett barn, sjunger, dansar eller pumpar kärleksfulla ord i ditt hjärta.

Kärlekens kraft är miljoner gånger starkare än rädslans och hatets. Där vi lägger energi får vi mer av. Den globala eliten som äger det allra mesta nu är 3-5 000 personer och vi är nästan sju miljarder. Nu är det upp till oss – folket – att rädda både denna planet och våra egna, barn och barnbarns liv. Det är dags att välja nu, varje dag – och vi kan vända denna destruktiva försämring.
Vi kan skapa något positivt genom en Folkrörelse för Positivt motstånd! Genom att lägga vår energi och våra pengar på det som är bra och fungerande för hälsan, Naturen och framtiden.
Snälla dela detta så att fler vet för Stormedia rapporterar inte – och GILLA gärna om du är med på detta!


This is another reason why I am cooking myself, as much as I can, and using products in it’s “natural state” as much as I can too, and organic, of course…

Much of the mainstream American food supply is laden with unhealthy additives, artificial flavorings, coloring, dyes, preservatives, hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and toxins. Not everyone agrees that GMOs have been proven harmful to humans, which is why the food chains listed here were selected specifically because they are responsible for a wide variety of health violations—the GMOs and their concealment from public knowledge are included for informational purposes.

As with all things, I urge you to read with your head on a swivel, adjusting your worldview based on new information.

#1: ConAgra Foods

ConAgra—whose brands include Hunt’s, Healthy Choice, Marie Callender’s, Orville Redenbacher, Slim Jim, Reddi-wip, Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, P. F. Chang’s, and Bertolli—labels many of their products under the confidence-inspiring statement of “made with all natural ingredients.” Their slogan, “Making the food you love,” is equally charming and disingenuous. Unless you contextualize them in a world of Orwellian doublespeak, these statements are the antithesis of truth. ConAgra was found guilty of “health code violations and bacterial contaminations at its food processing facilities, which have endangered consumers and in some cases been linked to deaths.” They’ve also concealed the use of GMOs in their products and practice unethical factory-farm sourcing.

In 2003, it was revealed that for two years, ConAgra had been poisoning Americans with E.coli-tainted beef, which the USDA was complicit in covering up.

#2: General Mills

Trisodium Phosphate (also known as TSP) is an additive and flavor enhancer found in thousands of frozen and processed foods, including kids’ cereals. It also happens to be an ingredient that was used in industrial cleaners—that is, until the EPA declared it unsafe for human exposure. Still, that doesn’t stop General Mills from using it. It’s okay, though, because GM states: “In our food products we use very small amounts [of TSP]”. Phew! Only a small amount of poison, thank God!

Up until just this year, General Mills’ foods also used BHT, or butylated hydroxytoluene, which animal tests have proven to be toxic.

General Mills has also come under fire for the widespread use of GMOs in nearly all of its foods. The company actively lobbies against any required labeling of GMO ingredients and it spreads disinformation concerning the safety of GMOs.

#3: Kraft Foods

There’s a reason why Kraft’s Mac N’ Cheese has such a beautifully golden hue to it: it’s the artificial coloring agent Yellow No. 6, which has been linked to hyperactivity, asthma, skin conditions and even cancer. In 2013, Kraft bowed to pressure and removed the artificial coloring, but tens of thousands of people have already consumed their products. Kraft also hides the presence of GMOs in their foods while actively fighting against regulations to require the labeling of these potentially dangerous ingredients. And, of course, their highly processed, pre-packaged products contain high amounts of fat, sugar and sodium.

Oh, and one last thing: as of March 18th, 2015, Kraft was in the process of recalling 6.5 million boxes of Mac N’ Cheese because some of them contained fragments of metal.

#4: Heinz

Heinz recently lost a lawsuit over false advertising. They’ve been busy lying to the public by labeling products made from GMOs as all natural. Whether you tolerate GMOs in your food or not, the fact is that this company has a proven track record of lying to the public.

Furthermore, Heinz products contain the following ingredients: tomato concentrate made from non-organic tomatoes, distilled vinegar, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn syrup, salt, and variety of spices and flavorings. Each squirt of that classic ketchup contains pesticides, HFCS (a neurotoxin), a particularly unhealthy type of sugar, and table salt, which dehydrates the body and depletes minerals.

You don’t have to stop eating ketchup—just switch to a healthy organic brand. The same goes for all of these foods.

#5: Campbell’s Soup Company

Is it a prerequisite for success that all large food companies must actively lie to their customers? Campbell’s soup, forever emblazoned in our minds by Andy Warhol’s iconic prints, has been a staple in most American homes for decades. Unfortunately, Campbell’s has been sued for hiding the presence of GMOs and for labeling foods as low-sodium when they contain as much salt as regular products. The average cup of Campbell’s soup contains a staggering 850mg of sodium. Unless that’s your only major meal of the day, consuming it means you’re risking heart attacks, diabetes and high blood pressure.

Just as importantly, if not more so, is the fact that for many decades, Campbell’s has lined its epoxy-resin cans with the toxic chemical, bisphenol A (BPA). “BPA has been linked in lab studies to breast and prostate cancer, infertility, early puberty in girls, type-2 diabetes, obesity, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” according to Only recently did the company finally bow to pressure and phase BPA out of its production.

#6: Coca-Cola

Does this really surprise anyone? By this point, you should be aware of the myriad health problems that Coca Cola and Diet Coca Cola cause, but sometimes it’s helpful to break it down to the specifics. Coca Cola has over a half dozen chemical additives that are detrimental to your health: E150D, a food coloring agent; E952, or Sodium Cyclamate, a synthetic sugar substitute that was actually banned by the FDA in 1969 and then inexplicably reinstated by WHO a decade later; E950, or Acesulfame Potassium, which is 200 times sweeter than sugar, very addictive, and is bad for the cardiovascular and nervous system; E951, or aspartame, a sugar substitute that has been linked to brain tumors, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), epilepsy, Graves’ disease, chronic fatigue, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, mental deficiency and tuberculosis; E338, or Orthophosphoric Acid, which can cause irritation of the skin and eyes; and E211, or Sodium Benzoate, a compound that, according to one study, damages human DNA.

#7: Nestlé

Nestlé is one of three companies using GMOs in their infant formula. Okay, so maybe you want to trust corporate-paid scientists about the safety of GMOs— but Nestlé also has the additional track record of using traces of the industrial poison melamine. For context, this is the same chemical that sickened at least 50,000 Chinese infants in 2008.

Purina, which is owned by Nestlé, also had a lawsuit filed against it for the use of propylene glycol, a known animal toxin and component of automotive antifreeze in its dog food. After over 3,000 dogs became ill, Purina responded on its website that propylene glycol is “an FDA-approved food additive that is also in human foods like salad dressing and cake mix.” How reassuring.

#8: Kellogg’s

Kellogg’s has been the target of a nationwide ban over GMOs after spending over $1,012,552 on pro-GMO, anti-organic media propaganda in California, Washington, and Oregon in order to defeat GMO labeling initiatives. Did the nationwide ban impact Kellogg’s corporate ethos? Unfortunately, the company actually doubled down and its products now contain 100% GMO corn that contains traces of glyphosate and BT toxins.

#9: PepsiCo

Following the lead of Coca Cola, Pepsi vowed to changed its formula after a California law mandated a carcinogen warning for soft drinks. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Pepsi still contains 4-methylimidazole, or 4-Mel, which has been linked to cancer in humans.

Another major opponent of GMO labeling laws, PepsiCo invests millions in celebrity endorsements to make sure you don’t equate their products with obesity, diabetes or cancer. A 2014 study has shown Pepsi has even more sugar fructose than previously believed.

#10: Hershey’s

Along with many other chocolate companies, Hershey’s was recently found to have unsafe levels of lead—which can lead to neurological damage and learning disabilities—as well as cadmium, which can cause reproductive harm and damage to the kidneys, liver, and bones.

Additionally, Hershey’s has spent more than a million dollars to make sure you can’t be certain whether or not the candies you are eating contain GMOs. Their most popular treats contain many modified ingredients, a fact they obviously hope stays unknown.

This article (10 Worst Food Companies that are Poisoning You Daily and Lying About It) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: faerie-angel. Help us fix our typos:

The Dark Side of ‘Healthy’ Wheat – article by Leah Zerbe

Another article about wheat again…
and here you can find more information about Dr William Davis:

The Dark Side of ‘Healthy’ Wheat

Modern wheat isn’t really wheat, a best-selling author explains.

January 12, 2012
Take everything you’ve heard about whole wheat and throw it out the window. It’s not a health food, it’s making you fat, and your digestive tract hates you for eating it, according to the author of Wheat Belly 10-Day Grain Detox and the New York Times best-selling book, Wheat BellyBut back to wheat: So how—and when—did this ancient grain become such a serious health threat? Author and preventive cardiologist William Davis, MD, says it was when big agriculture stepped in decades ago to develop a higher-yielding crop. Today’s “wheat,” he says, isn’t even wheat, thanks to some of the most intense crossbreeding efforts ever seen. “The wheat products sold to you today are nothing like the wheat products of our grandmother’s age, very different from the wheat of the early 20th century, and completely transformed from the wheat of the Bible and earlier,” he says.
Plant breeders changed wheat in dramatic ways. Once more than four feet tall, modern wheat—the type grown in 99 percent of wheat fields around the world—is now a stocky two-foot-tall plant with an unusually large seed head. Dr. Davis says accomplishing this involved crossing wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce altogether new genes, using techniques like irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose x-rays to induce mutations. (See how your brain heals when you start eliminating grains.)Clearfield Wheat, a variety grown on nearly 1 million acres in the Pacific Northwest and sold by BASF Corporation—the world’s largest chemical manufacturer—was created in a geneticist’s lab by exposing wheat seeds and embryos to the mutation-inducing industrial toxin sodium azide, a substance poisonous to humans and known for exploding when mishandled, says Dr. Davis. This hybridized wheat doesn’t survive in the wild, and most farmers rely on toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep it alive when growing it as a crop. (It’s important to note, however, that the intensive breeding efforts that have so dramatically transformed wheat should not to be confused with genetic engineering of food, or GMOs. This type of technology has its own set of problems, though.)More: See how eliminating all grains could be the healthiest move you’ll ever make.So what does all of this plant science have to do with what’s ailing us? Intense crossbreeding created significant changes in the amino acids in wheat’s gluten proteins, a potential cause for the 400-percent increase in celiac disease over the past 40 years. Wheat’s gliadin protein has also undergone changes, with what appears to be a dire consequence. “Compared to its pre-1960s predecessor, modern gliadin is a potent appetite stimulant,” explains Dr. Davis. “The new gliadin proteins may also account for the explosion in inflammatory diseases we’re seeing.”

The appetite-stimulating properties of modern wheat most likely occurred as an accidental by-product of largely unregulated plant-breeding methods, Dr. Davis explains. But he charges that its impact on inflammatory diseases may have something to do with the fact that, in the past 15 years, it’s been showing up in more and more processed foods. Wheat ingredients are now found in candy, Bloody Mary mixes, lunch meats, soy sauce, and even wine coolers. (The irony is that “healthy” wheat can actually make you nutrient deficient.)

As if making you hungrier weren’t enough, early evidence suggests that modern wheat’s new biochemical code causes hormone disruption that’s linked to diabetes and obesity. “It is not my contention that it is in everyone’s best interest to cut back on wheat; it is my belief that complete elimination is in everyone’s best health interests,” says Dr. Davis, “In my view, that’s how bad this thing called ‘wheat’ has become.”

More: Your Ultimate Grain-Free Shopping List

When Dr. Davis’ patients eliminate wheat from their diet, the outcomes are often dramatic, with many losing as much as 20 pounds during the first month. He reports that patients experience relief from acid reflux, esophagitis, gas, cramps, and diarrhea stemming from irritable bowel syndrome after ditching wheat. Joint swelling and pain are often completely eliminated, he says, and patients report improvements in everything from asthma and skin conditions to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Rye, barley, and oats share some of the same properties of wheat because they all contain gluten-like proteins. Dr. Davis urges his patients to opt for non-wheat grains like quinoa, buckwheat, millet, and wild rice, but in smaller quantities (less than half a cup) to avoid triggering high blood sugar.

Post om Monsanto från Sanna Anandala + article about nanopesticides

Här är en post från Sanna Anandala (från Facebook) – viktigt om hur Monsanto påverkar oss! Och det är demonstrationer mot Monsanto idag, här är info om det:

Och här är länken till Sannas inlägg:

Nu ska jag dela något personligt som jag aldrig visat förut: jag blev mycket sjuk sommaren 2011 i flera saker men det värsta var GMO och nanopesticider – vilket är värre och nästan ingen känner till det och det regleras inte överhuvudtaget…

Det ni ser på bilderna är vad som kom ur min hud under nästan två års tid, och när det torkade var det hårt och plastliknande. Jag hade väldigt ont i hela huden i nio månader. Ni som följde mig då på FB vet hur nära det var flera gånger att jag inte höll mig kvar här…

Nanopesticider är mkt små kapslar gjorde av självreplikerande nanofibrer och Monsanto & Co menar det är bra för man kan få en högre dos pesticider specifikt. Eftersom ingen rapporterar om detta har vi ingen aning om hur mycket det används, eller hur många som är drabbade. Men i USA är hundratusentals drabbade av det jag hade – och i Sverige känner jag flera som har det också. Vi är ett par st som läkt ifrån det i vart fall…

Våren 2011 bodde jag invid ett fält där växterna besprutades med nanopesticider och det kom in i mitt system, där de självreplikerande nanofibrerna först började växa i tarmen och slog ut den så den funkade inte utan laxermedel efter ett tag. När jag sedan fick ett fästingbett och en annan exponering så sänktes immunförsvaret och helvetet brakade loss. Dessa nanofibrer växte överallt i min hud och det gjorde väldigt ont i nio månader. Jag fick det diagnosticerat av en Miljötoxikolog i LA som hjälpte mig med protokoll för att bli av med det – att detoxa, stärka tarmen, hålla mkt strikt diet och ta örter (som gurkmeja och kattklo), Glutathion o annat som stärker det friskar o reparerar DNA. Samt även göra detoxbad varje dag…
Jag fick både GMO-saker och de självreplikerande nanofibrerna för det gick in i mitt DNA o var mkt obehagligt när jag plötsligt fick flera vita ögonfransar och ögonbryn… Som inte var gjorda av hår. Alltså påverkade det min arvsmassa, och det tog lång tid att reparera.

Detta är något nytt och en fullkomlig mardröm – för växter sprutas med det och det drabbar arbetarna, djur o insekter kring fälten o går ner i grundvattnet. Det går inte att skölja av grönsakerna eller frukterna så människor i Sverige får troligen redan i sig detta via processad industrimat. Det medicinska etablissemanget förnekar det och CDC (Center för Diseace control) säger att de drabbade hallucinerar… Javisst, det ni ser på bilderna hallucinerade jag fram. Och hundratusental människor hallucinerar precis samma sak…

Lite kort om detta – och en stor uppmaning till alla att vakna upp och se vad som håller på att ske utan att vi får veta något. Kom på demonstrationen imorgon på alla ställena runt om i Sverige och visa att du INTE accepterar detta. Vi måste stå upp mot Monsanto & Co som är sjukt destruktiva – och ingen reglerar deras aktivitet. Vi måste stå upp för Moder Natur och visa att vi inte accepterar dess övergrepp på naturen och människors hälsa!

Kan du inte demonstrera på eftermiddagen – var med i tanken – annars kom och hör mig brandtala i Humlegården kl 15!
2022 – it’s now or never! Varmt välkomna

Sanna Anandala's photo.

Everything You Need To Know About Nanopesticides

Stacey Harper has never been a farmer. In wooded Alsea, Oregon, Harper is more likely to be found hunting elk than sowing seeds.

Rather, it’s Harper’s work in the laboratory that links her to the soil.

A scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Harper is doggedly researching tiny, human-made substances called nanoparticles, with the goal of identifying which will be a boon and which a bane for farmers, consumers and the environment. Nanoparticles, which are the size of molecules, are already used in everything from sunscreen to biomedical devices. Their minuscule size makes them efficient, but also unpredictable. That’s what worries Harper: The first nano-formulations of pesticides are quietly making their way onto agricultural fields, and she wants to know what happens next.

An engineer as well as a toxicologist, Harper holds a unique perspective. She believes nanotechnology could help revolutionize farming just as it has medicine. But she sees the potential as well as the risks of nanopesticides. “I think the vast majority of nanopesticides will not be toxic” — or, at least, no more toxic to non-target organisms than current pesticides, says Harper. “We just need a way to identify that handful that may be hazardous.”

By shrinking the size of individual nanopesticide droplets, there is broad consensus — from industry to academia to the Environmental Protection Agency — that the total amount of toxins sprayed on agricultural fields could be significantly reduced. Smaller droplets have a higher total surface area, which offers overall greater contact with crop pests. As well, these tiny particles can be engineered so that, for example, a physical shell called a capsule can better withstand degradation in the environment, offering longer-lasting protection than conventional pesticides. But that shell can alter what had been predictable physical properties, such as how soluble the pesticide is in water.

And Harper is also well aware that the unique physical properties of the nano-scale call into question the particles’ environmental fate. Once they’re sprayed on fields, will they clump on crops or slide through the soil into water bodies? Most worrisome, Harper wonders whether they will be readily taken up by organisms that aren’t pests (such as bees or fish), and how long they will persist in the environment — properties that could radically change with size. “We just don’t know,” she says.

“The potential for nano-enabled pesticides is unbelievable, but it’s still a dream at the moment,” says Sonny Ramaswamy, director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. And the dream goes beyond pesticides. He describes plans for nano-sized sensors that can detect low nitrogen and send a message to a farmer’s cell phone or nanosensors in plastic food packaging that lights up when it comes into contact with listeria or salmonella. “The concern is that there might be unintended consequences associated with nanoparticles — that’s the big question being looked at by federal agencies,” he adds. “People like Stacey Harper are providing that yeoman service in making sure we are addressing any potential unintended consequences.”

“The potential for nano-enabled pesticides is unbelievable, but it’s still a dream at the moment.”

Harper remembers the first time she heard the term “nanotechnology.” It was a decade ago during a meeting at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Las Vegas, where she worked as a postdoctoral student. Her team was tasked with assessing the health risks of nanomaterials. “The big discussion was ‘what are they and why are we concerned about them,’” she recalls.

Intrigued, Harper dove all-in, focusing initially on biomedical applications such as gold nanoparticles used to target drug delivery (one of the first products that adopted the technology). Eco-conscious companies were soon flooding her lab with products — ranging from sunscreens to acne medicine to compounds that fight methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, a flesh-eating bacteria) — for feedback on safety. She soon realized that with this new technology, an infinite number of nanoparticle types could be created, and that traditional risk assessment approaches, which would test individual nanoparticles, weren’t going to keep up with the challenge. “It’s really about figuring out what physical or structural properties would make one nanoparticle toxic compared to others,” she says.

Finding these answers has been anything but easy. One problem is a lack of funding. Over the last 13 years, the U.S. government has funneled billions into the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a coordinated R&D program that spans 20 federal departments and agencies and aims to spur nanotechnology across sectors. In 2008, the NNI took an unprecedented step and also began funding environmental health and safety research. “The need to assess new technology risks is one of the lessons learned from the GM (genetic modification of food) backlash,” says Harper. So far, however, the small fraction of this money available for risk testing has focused largely on workers who may inhale nanoparticles.

Scientists realized they needed faster, more efficient ways of assessing the risks of nanoparticles. Harper, for example, developed a test to assess the toxicity of nanomaterials on zebrafish, an aquatic version of a lab rat, one that can inform impacts to human health as well as the environment. Ramaswamy calls it “a really cool model system.”

“Of the hundreds of nanotech compounds we have tested, only a few are raising red flags,” Harper says. “It often boils down to whether the particle’s surface chemistry has an overall positive charge,” meaning, for example, that they could be attracted to negatively-charged cell membranes if they got into the human body. To keep track of the trouble-making nano-features, she helped create an international database of the physical structures and their toxicity. The goal is to determine which nanoparticle designs should be avoided, then share that information with industry.

It was Harper’s husband and current lab manager, Bryan, who turned her attention to the environmental impact of nanopesticides. Years ago, he worked at the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), a federally funded hotline housed on OSU’s campus that handles the public’s questions about pesticide health risks. Bryan was caught off-guard when calls starting coming in seeking information about the environmental risks of nanosilver, the first nanopesticide to hit the market. It’s an anti-bacterial compound used in a wide range of consumer products, from clothing to dietary supplements.

Naturally, he asked his wife for input. She couldn’t find anything on the risks in the scientific literature. “The environmental fate of nanopesticides is a big, black hole,” says Bryan. To help fill that void, Harper and colleagues recently received funding to determine how first-generation agricultural nanopesticides would move through soil and water, and whether they could inadvertently harm fish or bees.

To test these scenarios, Harper created “nano-sized ecosystems” to test how these compounds move through their environment and interact with fauna. In her lab, for example, plastic containers holding only a few grams of soil are poised above quarter-sized containers holding embryonic zebrafish. The team applies pesticides to the soil and then records the number of deformities in the zebrafish embryos. Harper’s OSU colleague, Louisa Hooven, will soon begin an experiment to see whether aerial sprays of nano-pesticide formulations will effect how bees transport pollen to their hives. The team expects to publish their findings by the end of the year.

But testing is not as easy as it sounds. Since the active ingredient in any given pesticide will likely be an already-approved chemical, pesticide companies don’t have to test a nano-sized version. Harper has run into enough walls that she doubts pesticide companies will voluntarily share their compounds, or even whether or not their products contain nanoparticles.

So she started pulling agricultural pesticides off the shelf to see if any already contain nano-sized particles, which, by definition, would make them nano-enabled pesticides. “Stacey is tenacious,” says NPIC director David Stone, who co-authored a 2010 paper with Harper laying out why “business-as-usual pesticide registration” won’t work at the nanoscale. “She’s got a lot of horsepower and creative ideas,” he says, adding that she’s one of the few researchers that will test products already on the market.

An initial scan revealed that 90 percent of the dozen pesticide products Harper and her colleagues have tested contain particles in the nanoscale range. Now she has to determine whether the nanoparticles are an active ingredient, a chemical stabilizer or simply a benign component that’s been in pesticides all along, unseen until recently.

“The environmental fate of nanopesticides is a big, black hole.”

“There is very little environmental fate and transport testing of nanoparticles being done,” says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist focused on regulation of toxic chemicals at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s expensive research, and where companies may have collected some environmental monitoring data, they don’t have any interest in making that information public,” she adds.

But Harper knows it won’t be long before manufacturers move beyond simply shrinking pesticides into nano-formulations. She expects to see multifunctional nanopesticides — for example, products equipped with biosensors able to detect pests before releasing the active ingredient — within the next 10 years. The speed with which the technology is advancing only bolsters her determination to answer these questions quickly.

Traveling over the hills from Alsea to the Willamette Valley each morning, she and her husband sometimes get a pungent reminder that their research could help find sustainable ways to reduce the need for so many sprays. “We can smell the fungicides and pesticides being applied to fields,” she says. “The more time you spend enjoying the beautiful country around here, the more you want to protect it.”

This story was produced by the Food and Environment Reporting Network, an independent, nonprofit news organization focusing on food, agriculture, and environmental health.

Correction: This article incorrectly identified MRSA as a flesh-eating virus. It is a flesh-eating bacteria.

10 reasons to say no to GMO

While most people have now heard about genetically modified foods (GMOs), many still don’t understand what they are or the risk they pose. For that reason, we at Earth We Are One are sharing 10 reasonsto say “No” to GMOs – or at least deeply consider the effect they might have on the world – and the future – if supported.

1) GMOs are unhealthy

According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), doctors should prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

In addition, numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.

GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel, making it impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Think it’s not serious? Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.

Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―the deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.

Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety.

Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.

Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.

GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.

Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

Supporting natural, bio-dynamic, and sustainable farming methods is the future of providing food and livelihood for the future. If you want to get involved and make your opinion matter, remember that every piece of food you buy is voting with your dollar. Highly processed, nutritionally devoid processed food largely relies on GMO crops like soybeans and corn, so choose organic, GMO-free packaged foods, and try to support local, organic growers when you can.




ResponsibleTechnology (Health Risks)

Food Revolution

ResponsibleTechnology (Top 10)

Nature’s Food Patch (Florida) invests in GMO transparency/Matkedja anställde forskare på heltid för att spåra GMO

Nature’s Food Patch invests in GMO transparency

By Arianne Pfoutz
Published: October 6, 2014
Category: Non-GMO Company Profiles

Nature's Food Patch invests in GMO transparencyNature’s Food Patch in Clearwater, Florida is committed to selling only non-GMO foods.To access all the articles in this month’s issue of The Organic & Non-GMO ReportSUBSCRIBE NOW.

Florida natural food retailer vets each product to label and root out GMOs

It’s a store owner’s million-dollar question: How can I attract and maintain a loyal cadre of customers? What can I offer them that will directly add to their quality of life?

Laurie Powers-Shamone has been pondering that for 43 years. That’s how long she’s been working in the natural foods industry, starting in a Florida food coop and now serving for 26 years as Store Director of Nature’s Food Patch in Clearwater—the only large natural grocer in upper Pinellas County.

She’s also earned a reputation in the industry for strong action against GMOs. In 1999 she lobbied Congress as a member of the National Board of Directors of the Natural Products Association. In the early 2000s, Nature’s Food Patch sponsored talks by Craig Winters, founder of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and GMO expert Jeffrey Smith. “The Patch” provides ongoing GMO and holistic health education for customers through brochures, lectures, movies and social media blasts.

The hunt for GMOs

“Consumer GMO awareness picked up significantly in 2005 when the Non-GMO Project started,” Laurie said. “Still, all we could tell customers was to buy organic or Non-GMO Project Verified items, because we just didn’t know where GMOs were hiding.”

It came to a head in 2012. As GM labeling bills failed to pass, Laurie decided The Patch was going to take on the challenge independently: she hired a full-time GMO researcher to go through every product in the store to determine GMO presence.

“We’d call every manufacturer and ask for detailed information if there were suspicious ingredients,” Laurie said. “We got rid of lots of items. If the item was super popular and couldn’t be replaced, we’d label it as GMO. We don’t allow any new products into the store that contain GMOs.”

The goal is for each item to be either “Patch Verified,” indicating written certification from the manufacturer or producer that the product is GMO free, or Non-GMO Project Verified. Otherwise a “possible GMOs” label is attached. The Patch lets the manufacturer know that if they can’t provide information, they risk losing their spot on the shelves. Many suppliers have taken the challenge seriously and have turned to Non-GMO verification as a result.

Marketing Director Cheryl Rosselle says the biggest challenge is

finding the GMOs in the first place. “Many of the ingredients can be hiding. The next challenge is getting the manufacturers to answer you, or even to find a contact. Often the person who answered the phone would know little about GMOs.” Second generation GMOs, such as GM feed, are also challenging.

Building community through trust

The result? The Patch has become known as “one of the most ethical stores around.” It was chosen recently as one of the Top 12 Right to Know Grocers (Diligent Dozen) by the Organic Consumers Association. And it has seen two major expansions: from a 5,000 square foot (sf) farmer’s coop, it grew to 14,000 sf and then in 2010, was expanded to its current 22,000 sf. (A 2,000 sf addition is planned for a learning center/community room.)

Powers-Shamone now knows one secret that other retailers can learn from: labeling GMOs is a smart marketing tool. “Putting up that first label was hard, and it took quite a lot of time for me to make that decision,” she said. “Traditionally in advertising, you don’t talk about bad things, but people simply want to know if GMOs are present.”

The work invested in earning consumer trust has generated a loving, customer-engaged atmosphere at Nature’s Food Patch, Laurie says. “When they know we care about their health and wellbeing, it builds community. Our continuing efforts to educate and provide the best food inspire our staff as well as everyone who comes through the door, or visits us online.”

Laurie’s latest brainstorm is that the responsibility for transparency needs to shift. Of the five levels involved in food production—grower of raw materials, manufacturer, vendor, retailer, and customer—she felt in 2012 that as a retailer she had to do the work due to pressure coming from level five, the customer. “It’s the second level—the manufacturer of products—that should be disclosing GMOs,” she says. “My latest idea is, why can’t the vendor do the work and label all GMO products in their catalog?”

But for now, the investment has paid dividends. “When we got the ‘Top 12 Right To Know Grocer’ award, we heard from folks all over the country, who said, ‘Please come build a store here!’” she recalls. “It was a tremendous reward for all the hard work.”

© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report, October 2014

Matkedja anställde forskare på heltid för att spåra GMO

Matkjedjan ”Nature’s Food Patch” i Florida USA är angelägna om att leverera hälsosam, etisk och framför allt GMO-fria varor till sina kunder. Utöver att leverera varor, vill man även sprida information med broschyrer, föreläsningar och filmer om GMO och holistisk hälsa.

I USA drivs frågan om att införa en märkning av GMO-innehåll, men kampanjen får mycket motstånd från både biotechindustrin och livsmedelsindustrin.
I sin egen strävan för att kunna garantera GMO-fritt i butiken, beslutade ägaren till  Nature’s Food Patch att hyra in en forskare på heltid för att gå igenom varenda produkt i sortimentet.
”Vi skulle ringa varje tillverkare och be om detaljerad information om misstänkta ingredienser”, säger ägaren Laurie Powers-Shamone till nättidningen The Organic & Non-GMO Report.

I denna undersökning försvann massor av artiklar. Vissa populära gamla artiklar som nu upptäcktes innehålla GMO, fick märkningen GMO-innehåll. Nya produkter med GMO-innehåll refuserades direkt
Genom denna efterforskning satte handlaren press på sina leverantörer. Kunde de inte svara på om produkterna innehöll GMO, förlorade de sin plats på hyllorna.
Beslutet om att anlita en GMO-forskare på heltid har enligt ägaren inneburit en ökad kundkrets och en efterfrågan på att starta upp fler butiker i USA.

Vilken matkedja antar utmaningen i Sverige?
Vilka produkter skulle försvinna från hyllorna om man på djupet efterforskade misstänkt GMO-innehåll?
Och skulle du mer medvetet välja matkedja, om det fanns en större skillnad i hur man hanterar GMO?

Laurie Powers-Shamone
Läs originalartikeln från 2014 här:

Uppmärksammat av Robyn O’Brien den 22 april 2015:

Previous Older Entries

July 2020