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.
Advertisements

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.

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:
https://www.facebook.com/events/534035066635453/

Och här är länken till Sannas inlägg:

https://www.facebook.com/sanna.ehdin/posts/10153034605647535:0

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.

Food revolution day with Jamie Oliver (video)

A fun way to get the message out there 🙂

Previous Older Entries

October 2018
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031