Another article about glyphosate, Monsanto, Round-up… by Elias Marat

From Elias Marat, Feb 26, 2019

Toxic Weed Killer Found in Almost All Beer and Wine Brands … Including Organic

Most of the food that we eat makes a long and tortuous journey to our tables, often over great distances or from unknown origins.

Whether it’s factory-farmed eggs, processed chicken, fresh fruit from the west coast, seafood from the east coast, or a glass of wine or ice-cold beer, we often assume that what we’re eating is generally healthy or at least won’t harm us if enjoyed in moderation.

However, a new report by public-interest watchdog group U.S. PIRG has revealed that most of the top beers and wines in the United States are contaminated with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s weed-killer, Roundup.

Roundup is a controversial herbicide that has been linked to cancer and other health problems in studies by the World Health Organization and the State of California, among others. In recent years, thousands of people have blamed Monsanto for being a key contributor to their cancer, leading to calls across the world for the weed-killer to be banned.

The advocacy group tested five wines and fifteen beers. The beer brands tested included top-sellers Budweiser, Coors, Miller Lite, Sam Adams, Samuel Smith Organic, and New Belgium. The wine brands tested included Beringer, Barefoot and Sutter Home.

Out of the 20 brands tested, glyphosate was found in 19 of them – including in 3 out of 4 organic beers and wines.

Among the beverages with the highest concentration of glyphosate was 2018 Sutter Home Merlot at 51.4 parts per billion (pbb) and Tsingtao, a beer from China, with 49.7 pbb – a rather high level when compared with the U.S. beer with the largest amount, which was Coors Light at 31.1 pbb.

Organic beverages like 2016 Inkarri Malbec lagged behind at 5.3 pbb while 2017 Samuel Smith Lager had 5.7 pbb.

In a statement, organic winery Frey Vineyards noted that while it refrains from the use of both herbicides and pesticides, “glyphosate in trace amounts is now found in rainwater because of its application to conventionally farmed agricultural land. Glyphosate in trace amounts can be found in many food products across the United States. We urge consumers to speak up to ban all use of glyphosate.”

Peak Organic IPA was the sole adult beverage that had no trace of the likely carcinogen.

The group warned that while the level of contamination isn’t necessarily deadly, the discovery raises potential health concerns.

The report noted:

“The levels of glyphosate we found are not necessarily dangerous, but are still concerning given the potential health risks. What is surprising is that glyphosate found its way into almost every type of beer and wine tested, including organic products. That indicates that consumers who want to avoid glyphosate, due to its probably health effects, would have a difficult time doing so. Considering the ubiquity of glyphosate found in many foods tested by other scientists and groups, and the amount of glyphosate sprayed throughout the country, people are constantly exposed to glyphosate.”

While industry representatives have sought to minimize the report in media statements to USA Today, PIRG stressed that it remains important for consumers to understand the potential danger of imbibing pesticides on a regular basis.

Kara Cook-Schultz of the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, who also authored the study, noted:

“No matter the efforts of brewers and vintners, we found that it is incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbecue around the country.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, has fiercely defended the use of glyphosates, telling USA Today in an email that it “found no meaningful risks to human health, including infants and children, when the product is used according to the pesticide label,” and that it has concluded at this stage that the herbicide is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.

The EPA’s conclusion is sharply at odds with that reached by the World Health Organization, which found glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen in 2015 – a conclusion that the State of California concurred with in 2017. Monsanto has tried to appeal the case paving the way for its legal liability, along with parent company Bayer, in thousands of lawsuits where consumers and farmers have blamed Roundup for their incurable cancer.

In October, the first court trial over Roundup’s link to cancer ended with a victory for groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer at the age of 42 due to the herbicide. Now 46, Johnson will be paid $78 million, but may not live long enoughto receive the money.

And starting Monday, a jury in San Francisco federal court began the first federal case on Roundup’s links to a 70-year-old man’s cancer, which may pave the way for hundreds of similar cases. On its first day, the judge threatened to “shut down” any discussion of Monsanto’s long track-record of pressuring government regulators and manipulating cancer research.

Critics have long accused Monsanto of using its wealth and power to force regulators to declare glyphosate safe, including through outright collusion with EPA officials who killed past investigations by the agency.

Nevertheless, PIRG hopes that their study will help inform consumers about what’s at stake in the federal trial – and what goes into their bodies. The group has called for the ubiquitous herbicide to be banned until it can be proven safe, and for consumers to opt for organic products whenever possible due to the significantly lower amounts of glyphosate found in them.

Cook-Schultz commented:

“With a federal court looking at the connection between Roundup and cancer today, we believe this is the perfect time to shine a spotlight on glyphosate … This chemical could prove a true risk to so many Americans’ health, and they should know that it is everywhere – including in many of their favorite drinks.”

 

https://themindunleashed.com/2019/02/monsanto-roundup-weed-killer-beer-wine-organic.html?fbclid=IwAR3i-Hmu6A1fK2IaVhtSVBFmJU0BwSTlJYpSAI6ijFjEuH2P61-ZKvRXYFA

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.

https://livingmaxwell.com/gmo-impossible-burger-glyphosate?fbclid=IwAR26ONCEL15DNOh1awXL01Q5hCtyHw90TSv9Sp7bfmezbJXiGBnHP2yAoDI

Article about Monsanto – how they wrote some of their own safety reviews

Here’s another reason why to stay away as far as possible from anything related to Monsanto… article posted 9 Aug 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.

Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete.

Monsanto defends the review’s independence. Monsanto did only “cosmetic editing” of the Intertek papers and nothing “substantive” to alter panelists’ conclusions, says Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy. While the “choice of words” in the Declaration of Interest “was not ideal,” he says, “it didn’t change the science.”

In July 2016, the journal’s editor, Roger McClellan, emailed his final instructions to Roberts at Intertek on what the paper’s Acknowledgment and Declaration of Interest statements should include. “I want them to be as clear and transparent as possible,” he wrote. “At the end of the day I want the most aggressive critics of Monsanto, your organization and each of the authors to read them and say—Damn, they covered all the points we intended to raise.”

Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired—“ie by Intertek,” McClellan wrote. “If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed.”

Roberts forwarded McClellan’s emails, along with a more technical question, to Heydens, who responded, “Good grief.” The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue. There was no mention of the company’s participation in the editing.

Monsanto’s editorial involvement appears “in direct opposition to their disclosure,” says Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “It does seem pretty suspicious.”

In response to questions, McClellan wrote in an email on Aug. 7 that he’d been unaware of the Monsanto documents and has forwarded the matter to the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, in Abingdon, England. “These are serious accusations relative to scientific publishing canons and deserve very careful investigation,” he wrote. “I can assure you that Taylor and Francis, as the publisher, and I, as the Scientific Editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, will carefully investigate the matter and take appropriate action.” A Taylor & Francis spokeswoman says it has begun an investigation.

The Monsanto documents, more than 70 in all, were obtained through pretrial discovery and posted online by some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who claim Monsanto missed a 30-day window to object to their release. Monsanto says it was blindsided by the disclosures and has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to order the documents pulled from the web and to punish the attorneys for violating confidentiality orders. Says Monsanto’s Partridge: “It’s unfortunate these lawyers are grandstanding at the expense of their clients’ interests.”

Other emails show that Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, was removed as a co-author of a 2011 study on glyphosate’s reproductive effects, but not before she made substantial changes and additions to the paper behind the scenes. The study, published in Taylor & Francis’s Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, served to counter findings that glyphosate hampers human reproduction and development. Partridge says Farmer’s contributions didn’t warrant authorship credit. While almost all of her revisions made it into the published paper, her name doesn’t even show up in the acknowledgments.

BOTTOM LINE – Monsanto has long noted that independent scientists have vouched for the safety of its Roundup herbicide. Court data show its employees edited some of those reviews.

Article by Maddy Harland: Monsanto buys up heirloom seed suppliers

https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/monsanto-buys-heirloom-seed-suppliers

Monsanto Buys Up Heirloom Seed Suppliers

Maddy Harland
Monday, 30th June 2014

Monsanto is buying up heirloom seed companies and trademarks. Maddy Harland discovers who is buying what and how to avoid Monsanto. She explores why what we buy can be a form of positive activism.

The NM Tree and Garden Center located in Rio Rancho, New Mexico has discovered that Monsanto is buying heirloom seed companies. They are also buying the trademarks to a number of heirloom seeds. This means that you may think you are supporting an heirloom seed company but in reality the company is owned by Monsanto. The seeds themselves are still non-GMO and heirloom and they can be saved at the end of the harvest and resown next season, but you are still giving money to Monsanto.

Monsanto are also buying trademarks so that no matter where you buy certain seeds, they get money from it. Here is a LINK to the trademarks and seed companies Monsanto supply and ones that they do not supply in the USA.

Here’s some tips on how to avoid Monsanto.

We need to all do our research when buying seeds (or any organically labelled product for that matter).

In Europe we have witnessed a proactive corporate programme to buy up ethical/organic companies. L’Oreal now own The Body Shop and have a poor record for animal testing. Green and Blacks fair trade chocolate were bought in 2006 by Cadbury who were then acquired by Kraft Foods, one of the huge food multi-nationals. Rachel’s Organic, founded by Welsh farmers, is now a subsidiary of French company Lactalis.

This is a deliberate strategy – so much so that Triodos Bank actually have a European fund to help small organic companies stay independent and resist being bought up.

Why are small organic/heirloom marques being acquired by the big global corporates? Firstly, there is a commercial market for them. Secondly, what you own you can control. Thirdly, if you are a vast industrial magnate and own one of these companies you can marginalise its market if you wish.

Ethics in Action

As consumers we have the power to first support our local producers and make sure they stay in business. Then we need to support larger ethical, organic companies like Yeo Valley who produce organic dairy products and still remain independently owned by the family who started the company. Sometimes this means spending more money on a product. But we have a choice: Do we want to eat a chocolate bar with cacao picked by children in a system that pays the farmer a subsistence wage or do we want an artisanal bar that costs much more but tastes better and is fairly traded? Do we buy yoghurt from a large corporate who is trading under an acquired organic brand or from a local supplier or a family owned national organic supplier?

Permaculture is all about Earthcare, Peoplecare and Fair shares. It is therefore not only about what we grow but what we buy. Shopping is a form of activism. We all do it to a greater or lesser degree. We have to activate our consciences.

About The NM Tree and Garden Center

The NM Tree and Garden Center is a small nursery located in Rio Rancho. NMT & GC is owned by a husband and wife partnership who have always loved gardening and growing. Everything they grow is organic and sustainable. All their seeds are heirloom and will never be GMO. We hope this blog will inspire you to start growing your own food and planting trees. Contact us with any questions and for ordering information.

Monsanto Takeover in Europe

Europe may have opened the gates to Monsanto to grow genetically modified crops. Due to an accepted proposal by the EU Environment Council last week, GM crops could be planted across Europe as soon as next year.

Even worse, the proposal could give Monsanto and other biotech giants the power to overturn decisions made by democratically-elected governments to ban GM crops.

The European Parliament can still reject this decision. With MEPs voting on the issue soon, we need to make sure they hear from citizens across the continent to reject this Monsanto-backed proposal. Sign THIS PETITION to show our MEPs this is not what Europe wants.

Further Resources

Watch: Patrick Whitefield’s tips for seed saving and making compost

FREE downloadable Guide to Seed Saving, Seed Stewardship & Seed Sovereignty

Top tips for seed saving

Collecting summer seeds

PCM86.jpgNEW ENHANCED
PERMACULTURE SUBSCRIPTION

Exclusive content and FREE digital access to over 20 years of back issues

SUBSCRIBE:
www.permaculture.co.uk/Subscribe

Trial your FREE digital copy HERE!

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…

http://millionsagainstmonsanto.com/the-truth-about-ensure-nutrition-drinks/

“I WOULDN’T FEED THIS STUFF TO A DYING ANIMAL” – TERMINAL HOSPICE PATIENT EXPOSES TRUTH ABOUT ENSURE NUTRITION DRINKS

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: althealthworks.com by 

Jin Shin Jyutsu class: Adele Leas and JSJ for your Animal Companion, June 25-26 2016

 

Summer should be a time to celebrate!  We have the perfect idea of how to do that. Come and join us for the first ever Jin Shin Jyutsu for You and Your Animal Companion class at Brother Wolf Sanctuary near Asheville, North Carolina. It is the first weekend  of the summer and just about the most perfect time of year to be there. We will be working with the dogs from the sanctuary in a beautiful outdoor setting.  This class is open to all. It will counts towards Jin Shin Jyutsu  for Animal Companion Certification.

Contact – Amanda Silverman 347-678-7557/ asilv13@gmail.com

Copyright © 2016 Jin Shin Jyutsu for Your Animal Companion, All rights reserved.

Article: Why Is Glyphosate Sprayed on Crops Right Before Harvest?

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/05/glyphosate-sprayed-crops-before-harvest/

 | March 5, 2016

Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is recognized as the world’s most widely used weed killer. What is not so well known is that farmers also use glyphosate on crops such as wheat, oats, edible beans and other crops right before harvest, raising concerns that the herbicide could get into food products.

Escalating Use of Probable Carcinogen

Glyphosate has come under increased scrutiny in the past year. Last year the World Health Organization’s cancer group, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified it as a probable carcinogen. The state of California has also moved to classify the herbicide as a probable carcinogen. A growing body of research is documenting health concerns of glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor and that it kills beneficial gut bacteria, damages the DNA in human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells and is linked to birth defects and reproductive problems in laboratory animals.

A recently published paper describes the escalating use of glyphosate: 18.9 billion pounds have been used globally since its introduction in 1974, making it the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture. Significantly, 74 percent of all glyphosate sprayed on crops since the mid-1970s was applied in just the last 10 years, as cultivation of GMO corn and soybeans expanded in the U.S. and globally.

Glyphosate Used to Speed Up Wheat Harvest

Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., who published the paper on the mounting use of glyphosate, says the practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat prior to harvest, known as desiccating, began in Scotland in the 1980s.

“Farmers there often had trouble getting wheat and barley to dry evenly so they can start harvesting. So they came up with the idea to kill the crop (with glyphosate) one to two weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying down of the grain,” he said.

The pre-harvest use of glyphosate allows farmers to harvest crops as much as two weeks earlier than they normally would, an advantage in northern, colder regions.

The practice spread to wheat-growing areas of North America such as the upper Midwestern U.S. and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

“Desiccation is done primarily in years where conditions are wet and the crop is slow to dry down,” Joel Ransom, an agronomist at North Dakota State University, said.

Ransom says desiccating wheat with glyphosate has been a useful tool for farmers.

“It does help hasten dry down and controls grain weeds and other material that slows down the threshing practice,” he said. “It has an important role in areas where it’s wet.”

Ransom says the practice has increased in North Dakota, which is the leading wheat-producing state in the U.S., over the past 15 years due to wetter weather.

While more common in Upper Midwestern states where there is more moisture, desiccation is less likely to be done in drier wheat growing areas of Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington and Oregon.

All Conventional Farmers in Saskatchewan Desiccate Wheat

According to a wheat farmer in Saskatchewan, desiccating wheat with glyphosate is commonplace in his region. “I think every non-organic farmer in Saskatchewan uses glyphosate on most of their wheat acres every year,” the farmer speaking on condition of anonymity said.

He has concerns about the practice. “I think farmers need to realize that all of the chemicals we use are ‘bad’ to some extent,” he said. “Monsanto has done such an effective job marketing glyphosate as ‘safe’ and ‘biodegradable’ that farmers here still believe this even though such claims are false.”

The vast majority of farmers in Manitoba, Canada’s third largest wheat producing province, also use glyphosate on wheat, said Gerald Wiebe, a farmer and agricultural consultant. “I would estimate that 90 to 95 percent of wheat acres in Manitoba are sprayed pre-harvest with glyphosate; the exception would be in dry areas of the province where moisture levels at harvest time are not an issue,” he said.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy

According to Tom Ehrhardt, co-owner of Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seeds, sourcing grains not desiccated with glyphosate prior to harvest is a challenge.

“I have talked with millers of conventionally produced grain and they all agree it’s very difficult to source oats, wheat, flax and triticale, which have not been sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest,” he said. “It’s a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ in the industry.”

Ehrhardt also says that crops grown to produce seed are not usually sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest because this can damage seed germination.

Grain Millers, which has grain processing facilities in the U.S. and Canada, announced last year that it would not buy oats from Canada that had been desiccated with glyphosate. The company’s Canadian procurement manager, Terry Tyson, told Western Producer that glyphosate disrupts the natural maturing process and starch development, resulting in lower quality flakes and flour. He said the decision had nothing to do with health or safety concerns.

“Would Rather Not Eat a Loaf of Bread With Glyphosate In It”

Still, there are obvious concerns about glyphosate getting into food products.

“We are told these (glyphosate residues) are too small to matter but can we believe that?” the Saskatchewan farmer asked. “I think everyone, even farmers that use and love glyphosate, would rather not eat a loaf of bread with glyphosate in it.”

Wiebe shares similar concerns. “Consumers don’t realize when they buy wheat products like flour, cookies and bread they are getting glyphosate residues in those products,” he said. “It’s barbaric to put glyphosate in food a few days before you harvest it.”

Wiebe believes the use of glyphosate on wheat may be connected to the rise in celiac disease. “We’ve seen an explosion of gluten intolerance,” he said. “What’s really going on?”

“Can you imagine the public’s response if they knew that glyphosate is being sprayed on the oats in their Cheerios only weeks before it is manufactured?” Ehrhardt asked.

Residues of glyphosate have been found in wheat flour. Last year, Ransom reported to the U.S. Wheat Quality Council that tests on flour samples from the U.S. and Canada found that all had traces of glyphosate. However, Ransom said these were well below the maximum residue limits for glyphosate in wheat, which are 30 parts per million in the U.S.

Still, Ransom said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if someone repeated the test and found traces also.”

In response to mounting concerns over the escalating use of glyphosate, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently said it would begin testing foods for glyphosate residues.

Powerful Effect on Food System

Along with wheat and oats, glyphosate is used to desiccate a wide range of other crops including lentils, peas, non-GMO soybeans, corn, flax, rye, triticale, buckwheat, millet, canola, sugar beets and potatoes. Sunflowers may also be treated pre-harvest with glyphosate, according to the National Sunflower Association.

Benbrook says that a large portion of edible beans grown in Washington and Idaho are desiccated with glyphosate.

There are no statistics kept on the number of acres of wheat or other crops that are desiccated with glyphosate, according to Ransom.

While the pre-harvest use of glyphosate may account for a small amount of overall use of the herbicide, Benbrook says this still has a huge impact. “It may be two percent of agriculture use, but well over 50 percent of dietary exposure,” he said.

Further, he said: “I don’t understand why Monsanto and the food industry don’t voluntarily end this practice. They know it contributes to high dietary exposure (of glyphosate).”

Wiebe sees the situation in dire terms. “The most tragic thing is that industry is encouraging the use of glyphosate on wheat, farmers are using it, consumers are unaware of it and it’s having a powerful effect on the food system,” he said.

References

1. Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi MM, Furtado PV, Oliveira CA. “Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide Glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology.” Arch Toxicol. 2010;84:309-317.

2. Awad A. Shehata, Wieland Schrodl, Alaa. A. Aldin, Hafez M. Hafez, Monika Kruger. “The Effect of Glyphosate on Potential Pathogens and Beneficial Members of Poultry Microbiota In Vitro” Curr Microbiol. Dec 9, 2012.

3. Mañas F., Peralta L., Raviolo J., et al. “Genotoxicity of glyphosate assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenic tests.” Env Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009; 28:37–41.

4. Antoniou M., Habib MEM, Howard CV, et al. “Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: Divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence.” J Env Anal Toxicol. 2012;S4:006. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006.

5. Benbrook, C. “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally.” Environmental Sciences Europe (2016, 28:28) DOI: 10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0.

6. Arnason, Robert. “Oat buyer says no glyphosate pre-harvest.” Western Producer. April 22, 2015.

7. Gillam, Carey. “Fears Over Roundup Herbicide Prompts Testing Of Cereals, Breastmilk, and More.” Reuters News Service. April 10, 2015.

8. Gillam, Carey. “FDA to Start Testing for Glyphosate in Food.” Civil Eats. February 17, 2016.

9. “Preharvest Staging Guide.”

10. eu. “Clarification of Preharvest use of Glyphosate.”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

No, GMO Labeling Won’t Increase Food Prices

Vandana Shiva: Make Monsanto Pay

Nation’s First Vegan-Certified Farm Is Booming in Philly

Organic Panty Liners Pulled From Shelves After Traces of Glyphosate Found

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:
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com

http://www.rodalenews.com/wheat-free-diet

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.

Artikel av Ulla Gabay: Artificiell mat – ett inre miljöhot mot Folkhälsan

Jag köper så mycket ekologisk mat som jag bara kan, köper t ex älg och ren – dom är i alla fall inte uppfödda i fabriker… har slutat köpa odlad lax (tyvärr svårt att hitta vildfångad, och jag vet inte heller om jag litar på märkningen..) Och så lagar jag mat från grunden, så vet jag vilka tillsatser jag har stoppat i maten, försöker ha koll så gott det går… här är en artikel av Ulla Gabay:

http://newsvoice.se/2015/12/10/gabay-artificiell-mat-ett-inre-miljohot-mot-folkhälsan/

Det som driver på utvecklingen av en alltmer artificiell kost är klimathot, befolkningstillväxt och köttindustrins ohållbara produkter. Men priset kan bli högt: vår mänskliga hälsa. Därför är det av högsta vikt att även det inre miljöhotet kommer upp på den globala agendan.

Maten har länge manipulerats för att möta livsmedelsindustrins behov av lönsamhet. Jordbrukens stordrift har fått grödorna att tappa i näringsvärde på grund av ett lägre odlingsdjup. Och miljögifterna som sprutas över fälten, för att skydda växterna mot ”angrepp utifrån”, har ökat.

Djuren har götts upp onaturligt för att växa snabbt och ge mer kött. Fisken går nu samma väg i odlingskassar, där de matas med för dem främmande foder. Till exempel har den odlade laxen därigenom tappat 50 procent av Omega 3.

Grönsaker, frukt och bär har hybridiserats i syfte att bli jämna och stora, samt för att klara längre transporter och lagringstid. Vilket resulterat i ”attraktiva” produkter, med minskad näring och ett ökat innehåll av vatten, sockerhalt och cellulosa (ett kolhydrat människan inte kan bryta ner).

Till detta ska läggas alla berikningar, färg- och smakämnen, raffinerat mjöl, socker och salt, samt onyttiga fetter som måste tillsättas maten för att göra den attraktiv och ätbar. Alla dessa processer som den moderna kosten utsätts för drabbar med tiden vår kropp och hälsa. Något som epigentiken och ny forskning på 2000-talet tydligt visar.
Otillräcklig vetenskaplig evidens

Nu backas argumenten för framtidens alltmer syntetiska och biotekniska kost upp av klimathot, befolkningsökning och en ohållbar hantering av dagens matdjur. Det här är ingen lätt fråga att ta sig an. För det första är produkterna ännu inte ute på marknaden (med undantag för en del GMO-produkter, främst i USA). För det andra är bevekelsegrunderna lätta att ta till sig. Och hur många hot orkar man hantera på en gång?

Bioteknik är en tvärvetenskap som alltmer används av traditionella kemi- och läkemedelsföretag. Av de 6 stora multinationella agrokemiska bolag som dominerar jordbrukssektorn (”Big 6”) har de flesta huvudkontor i USA:

  • BASF (Tyskland),
  • Bayer AG (USA),
  • Dow (USA),
  • Du Pont (USA),
  • Monsanto (USA) och
  • Syngenta (Schweiz).

De framställer sig gärna som världens frälsare och att de står i mänsklighetens tjänst, typ: ”Moving The World Forward” (Dow) och ”Science For A Better Life” (Bayer). Men verkligheten ser något annorlunda ut.

Kontrollen av den biotekniska maten är helt baserad på industrins egna forskningsunderlag som ”värderas” av ansvarig myndighet före godkännandet. Patent på agrokemins genmodifierade livsmedelsprodukter omöjliggör i sammanhanget oberoende forskningsstudier. Den vetenskapliga evidensen är därför klart otillräcklig.

Vad den alltmer syntetiska jordbruks- och kostutvecklingen kommer att betyda för den mänskliga hälsan krävs i stället flera generationer för att kunna säkerställa (en generation räknas i cirka 25 år). Vilket går stick i stäv mot den snabba utvecklingen på det här området. I stället går ekonomiska intressen även här före; både statliga och globala. Vi blir alla därför, utan vårt godkännande, industrins levande försöksråttor.

Vårt inre miljöhot måste upp på agendan

De flesta av oss är idag medvetna om klimathotet och klart positiva till allt som kan göras för att motverka det. Och ingen vill givetvis att våra matdjur ska fara illa.

Problemet är att det inre miljöhot den moderna kosten utgör för oss människor sopas under mattan. Av styrandes kortsiktiga och egna intressen. Och med hjälp av stora summor från industrin som används till att lobba för deras produkter och svartmålning av de vetenskapsmän och andra som varnar för hälsoeffekterna. Samt av vår egen förnekelse, vare sig den kommer av okunskap eller grundar sig i bekvämlighet.

Forskningen runt epigenetiken, yttre miljöpåverkan (ex toxiner, stress och mat) som fungerar like en strömbrytare för svaga gener, är på väg att totalt ändra uppfattningen om sjukdomars uppkomst. Och från att maten traditionellt har betraktats som en del av den yttre miljön, fäster nu vetenskapen allt mer uppmärksamhet på dess betydelse för människans inre miljö.

Nya studier inom området ”nutritional epigenetics” visar på kostens betydelse för vår inre miljö. Inte minst för den snabba utvecklingen (även bland barn) av kroniska sjukdomar som:

  • inflammatoriska tillstånd,matintoleranser,
  • tarmsjukdomar,
  • diabetes,
  • fetma,
  • cancer,
  • hjärt-kärlsjukdomar,
  • Altzheimers och
  • vissa mentala tillstånd.

Att det här även är ett reellt hot mot framtida generationer, den allmänna sjukvården och vår gemensamma statskassa, verkar inte passa in i politikernas kortsiktiga vardag.

Sunda förnuftet säger att det inte kan vara någon större skillnad på hur den yttre naturmiljön och vår inre kroppsmiljö (inklusive djurens) försuras och förstörs av alla miljögifter och syntetiska industrikemikalier.

Naturen har redan sagt sitt, nu är det på tiden att vi lyssnar till kroppens rop på hjälp!

Text och foto: Ulla Gabay, journalist, författare och föreläsare | Läs mer av Ulla Gabay

Video: The Health Dangers of Roundup (glyphosate) Herbicide. Jeffrey Smith & Stephanie Seneff

This is the info about the video at youtube:

Publicerades den 10 maj 2013

It was “supposed” to be harmless to humans and animals—the perfect weed killer. Now a groundbreaking article just published in the journal Entropy points to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and more specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, as devastating—possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.”

That’s right. The herbicide sprayed on most of the world’s genetically engineered crops—and which gets soaked into the food portion—is now linked to “autism … gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others.”

Enjoy this videotaped guided tour of Jeffrey Smith interviewing co-author Stephanie Seneff, PhD, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT.

Previous Older Entries

June 2019
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930