Collective Evolution Article 5-25-14… “After The March Against Monsanto, Momentum Favors The People”

Collective Evolution Article 5-25-14… “After The March Against Monsanto, Momentum Favors The People”

monsanto_march_against_140525This march may well have been another one of those “lightning strikes“. It’s clear to me, that these GMO “giants” are hearing (and fearing) the will of the people.

————————————————————————-

After The March Against Monsanto, Momentum Favors The People

It is clear that we have just witnessed the largest single worldwide protest against a company and their products. What is also clear is the major public disgust for anything bearing the words ‘GMO.’ Monsanto’s only refuge lies in massively funded mouthpieces in the forms of news clips and certain public figures, combined with a legal stranglehold on scientific research and medical inquiries. Yet in the age of information, their propaganda is laughable. Meanwhile the townspeople gather, having replaced their torches and pitchforks with signs and banners. We see this time the battle being fought from a place of higher consciousness. Our weapons of choice are the devastating methods of non-compliance, civil disobedience and free enterprise. It appears while the smoke is still clearing from what may be the final March Against Monsanto, momentum favors the people.

Tipping points are historically difficult to pinpoint or predict. They often manifest in the form of some event or consciousness action that ignites the minds of the public in a “now I can see” moment. During that exact second, and no sooner, a mass movement locks into a single idea that once cemented in stone, will never die. We are at such a point. The once obscured battle lines in the sand have now been illuminated with neon signs, doused with gasoline and set ablaze in our collective DNA. Into the future we march knowing only one thing clearly, genetically modified food will not be a part of it.

Years of brave activism and mobilized populations of unhappy mothers, disenfranchised farmers and educated consumers have brought us to this point. Surging forward comes the real work with instant rewards. Led by the recent examples of Mike Adam’s Forensic Food Lab and the continuous work of the Food Babe’s army going mainstream, it is clear that companies fear our voice and will instantly comply to the people’s wishes. How do we keep the heat on Monsanto? The company’s actions have shown us that their plan will move forward at all costs. So it is up to us to take the reigns and destroy their market share by voting with our dollars.

The Battle Plan

You money is your megaphone, your soapbox and your most important vote. This is a fact cemented in the pages of history’s empty political promises and arrogant corporate attitudes. We have always been taught throughout life that change would require a struggle. Yet, regaining your right to be healthy, eat healthy and live absent from the constant assault of weaponizied food is perhaps the most energizing ‘struggle’ you could engage in. Plus it’s a real community builder!

Know Your Farmer

Most independent farmers these days struggle to make a living unless the are subsidized by Monsanto, Dow, et al. That is why supporting those farmers that choose to ‘go it alone’ and use organic methods and non-gm seed is now vital. Learn who those individuals/families are and support them. Now is the time. Evey dollar in their pocket is one taken directly from the ‘GMO machine.’

Grow Your Own

This is the best option and truly gives a win-win. By growing your own you will know where your food is coming from, that it’s organic, non-gmo and free. All are luxuries that are slipping through the hands of everyone on this planet. For the non-gardeners, gather neighbors and utilize the monocropping technique. This is accomplished by having each participant grow one crop. You can see in a neighborhood of ten participants there would be greater variety and more yield than any one individual could do alone. In addition, you only have to specialize in learning to grow and harvest one type of plant.

Keep The Social Media Heat

We have won the hearts and minds of the people. While plowing through this tipping point, it’s important to keep circulating information via all social media platforms. When petitions become large enough, the right people listen. Since our wishes have continually fallen upon the deaf, unempathetic ears of Monsanto and the man who calls himself president, it’s time to start focusing on smaller targets. Individual companies and suppliers can be effected. Subway, Whole Foods, McDonald’s, Jell-O etc have all recently witnessed this first hand. Pressure put on them via social media, petitions and emails to remove GMO in large numbers will serve to disrupt profit margins, take over board meetings and steer internal policy. In a beautiful twist of fate, those companies then join our sounding board pointed at Monsanto et al. Do you think Monsanto could ignore scores of large corporations terminating business with it because they find themselves no longer profitable from a simple social media campaign or collective movement to boycott GMO’s? Game over!

Courtesy of www.kauilapele.wordpress.com   – Kauilapele’s Blog

New Paradigm Legal Action Concerning Monsanto:

New Paradigm Legal Action Concerning Monsanto:

New Paradigm Legal Action Concerning Monsanto: 
OPPT Public Interest Courtesy Notice
This Monsanto Courtesy Notice has been drafted, filed and published on the worldwide web in support of the March on Monsanto scheduled for May 25, 2013.  This is an international action, by which the people of the world are asserting their sovereign right, that of our planet and all life upon her to have pure food and water, as well as the freedom to live without the insidious interference of those who would control us.

This new paradigm legal document can be used anywhere in the world as given, with only the name and address of the filer being changed.  It can be filed most effectively by sending it to each of the listed recipients via certified/registered/international mail, with email being an obvious but less impressive alternative; all of the recipients’ private, for-profit corporate websites have contact webforms.   This public interest courtesy notice can also be followed up by sizable invoices from each of us to each corporate recipient, if certain objectionable activities do not quickly cease and desist.

OPPT Public Interest Courtesy Notice
Filer:             Rebecca Em Campbell
                     107 Pine St., No. 332
                     Seattle, WA   98101
Recipients:    Michael R. Taylor-Deputy Commissioner for Foods
                     United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
                     Former General Counsel for the Monsanto Company
                     10903 New Hampshire Ave.
                     Silver Spring, MD 20993

                     Robert Perciasepe-Director
                     United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                     1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
                     Washington, DC  20460

                     Thomas Vilsack-Secretary
                     United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
                     1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
                     Washington, DC 20250

                     Hugh Grant-Chief Executive Officer
                     The Monsanto Company
                     800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
                     St. Louis, Missouri 63167

Legal Matter:  US Government Imposition of Monsanto’s Toxic Products on the American People and the People
                       of the World

Whereas, the Monsanto Company, as a transnational purveyor of agricultural biochemical technology, has been incestuously incorporated into the US government since the Second World War, with its corporate agents being widely employed as federal legislators, lobbyists and agency/court officials;

US Government-Monsanto Corporate Ties
Whereas the vast majority of federal legal and administrative rulings have overwhelmingly favored Monsanto, despite the obvious merits of those public interest cases brought against this corporation for its toxic products of DDT, Agent Orange, Roundup, Saccharin, Aspartame, bovine growth hormone, gen-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;”> Obama Slammed for Signing “Monsanto Protection Act”
US Government Agency/Court Rulings Overwhelmingly Favor Monsantohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Other_legal_actions_in_North_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies_outside_North_America

http://wakeup-world.com/oppt-in/
 
Compilation of Articles About Monsanto-US Corporate Government Collusion in Criminal Activities
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=Monsanto
Whereas this exposes on the part of the US government corporation, its congressional board of directors, its agencies and its courts, deliberate denial of remedy, indicating complicity in criminal conspiracy by aiding and abetting Monsanto in crimes against nature and humanity, these also being war crimes, since America has been under martial law since the beginning of the Civil War in 1861;
Lincoln’s Declaration of Martial Law Has Never Been Rescinded; This Has Been Quietly Used Against We the People
Whereas these actions/inactions clearly indicate on the part of the US government and its client, Monsanto, a pattern of criminal intent and conduct in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Codes, as well as the Bill of Rights and the United States Code, including the RICO Act;
The Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_of_the_Nuremberg_Code

The Geneva Conventions-Protocol II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II

The Bill of Rights-Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

United States Code(USC), Section 18 (RICO Act)-Chapters 1, Sect. 4-Misprision of Felony/10-Biological Weapons/11B-Chemical Weapons/ 19-Conspiracy/50A-Genocide/73-Obstruction of Justice/79-Perjury/109-Illegal Searches and Seizures/113B-Terrorism/115-Treason/118-War Crimes
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I

Whereas, beginning in late October 2012, the One People’s Public Trust filed a series of legal actions under the Universal Commercial Code (UCC) dechartering/foreclosing upon the global banking corate entities no longer exist, and therefore have no legal authority to impose their toxic products and policies upon the American people and the people of the world.  Nor have their former employees any existing government or corporate immunity from legal action being taken against them for any criminal actions/inactions, possibly resulting in the severe penalties mentioned above, as wan>

Therefore, since this includes the Monsanto Company — Dunn & Bradstreet DUNS Corporate Code No. 168428287 — as well as the entire private, for-profit US government corporation — DUNS Corporate Code No. 052714196 — and its agencies, the FDA — DUNS Corporate Code No. 138182175, the EPA — DUNS Corporate Code No. 057944910 — and the USDA — DUNS Corporate Code No. 029795793 — whose actual headquarters office is in St. Louis near that of Monsanto, indicating that they may have been branches of one and the same corporate entity — these corporate entities no longer exist, and therefore have no legal authority to impose their toxic products and policies upon the American people and the people of the world.  Nor have their former employees any existing government or corporate immunity from legal action being taken against them for any criminal actions/inactions, possibly resulting in the severe penalties mentioned above, as well as their personal assets being invoiced by sovereign citizens for considerable monetary amounts if they do not expeditiously comply with the following:
Hard Evidence of Corporate Takeover at All Levels of Government of the US/UN
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.com/2013/02/hard-evidence-of-corporate-takeover-at.html
I respectfully request, as one human being to anoth”margin-bottom: 12.0pt;”>
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
<!–[endif]–>
 l discover for themselves, the American people and the people of the world vital information concerning these systemic crimes, that such crimes may thereby be prevented in the future, and that the perpetrators of those crimes inflicted in the past be held personally accountable for their chosen actions and inactions.

I do hereby affix my signature the _________ day of _______, in the year __________.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Filer
<!–[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]–>
<!–[endif]–>
 
Posted by John MacHaffie at 8:30 AM 0 comments

Demand The FDA To Label Genetically Modified Foods!!!

THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT TO MAKE THE FDA LABEL ALL FOODS THAT HAVE BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED!!! THIS IS CRITICAL TO OUR HEALTH, OUR FUTURE AND TO KEEP FROM MESSING UP OUR DNA!!! It is my opinion that we need to STOP genetically modifying everything, and to leave things in their natural state. We are not the God of the universe, and man has been messing up God’s beautiful creations!! This planet needs to be freed from all the toxic chemical pollution and we certainly do NOT need chemicals and pesticides inside of the cells of the foods we eat, which then goes into making up the cells of our bodies in polluted form. You can create the life you want by your actions, and your thinking. Hopefully you have learned enough to know that this is NOT good, and how important it is to STOP the onslaught of destruction against the human race! You can continue on as usual, do nothing to help this cause, and “they” will continue to pollute everything on this planet…..OR you can go to this link:   http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7055   and submit your support of the FDA labeling the foods that we choose from GMO if they are.   This will change everything, because right now, almost everything you are consuming is gmo because appx. 85% of all the corn is gmo, and appx. 90% of all soybeans are gmo, and they are putting things like “high fructose CORN syrup” in almost everything you buy.  You will be so glad you participated in changing the World into a better place to live by doing this!!!  You and your children will be  blessed!                                           

  Tell Congress to Support Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food

In the U.S., we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations, we don’t have that choice when it comes to GE ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families.  This led the Center for Food Safety to submit a legal petition to the FDA demanding that the agency require the labeling of GE foods.  In response, Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) and Representative Peter DeFazio (OR) have authored a bicameral Congressional letter in support of our legal petition and will be urging their fellow Members on Capitol Hill to sign onto their letter.

Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite the fact that FDA undertakes no testing of its own, instead relying only on a voluntary consultation with industry and confidential industry data to assure safety.  Internal FDA documents discovered in prior CFS litigation actually indicated the foods could pose serious risks, but those views were overruled.

Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in nearly 50 countries around the world including the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand and many others.  A recent poll released by ABC News found that 93 percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.” Yet the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t require labeling of GE food!

Please email your U.S. Senators and Representative and urge them to join the Boxer-DeFazio letter in support of labeling!

Your Cereal Is Poison, Don’t Believe Me, Watch!

Well I thought it was a bad thing for the people to be ingesting gmo corn, corn syrup and soy, canola, cottonseed oil in their food and cereal. Now I’ve found out that there is metal in the cereal you are eating and feeding to your kids. When is this going to STOP? Everyone needs to band together and stand up against this assault on humanity! Watch this you tube video for yourself…………………..

Just Say NO To GMO!

Down With Monsanto!

Roundup -vs- Your Health

Food Safety , Environment , European Commission , Agriculture , Birth Defects , Epa , Farming , Herbicide , Monsanto , Pesticides , Regulators , Usda , Green News share this story
Get Green Alerts
Submit this storydigg reddit stumble                                                                                                                                           WASHINGTON — The chemical at the heart of the planet’s most widely used herbicide — Roundup weedkiller, used in farms and gardens across the U.S. — is coming under more intense scrutiny following the release of a new report calling for a heightened regulatory response around its use.

Critics have argued for decades that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides used around the globe, poses a serious threat to public health. Industry regulators, however, appear to have consistently overlooked their concerns.

A comprehensive review of existing data released this month by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open-source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, suggests that industry regulators in Europe have known for years that glyphosate, originally introduced by American agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in 1976, causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals.

Founded in 2009, Earth Open Source is a non-profit organisation incorporated in the U.K. but international in scope. Its three directors, specializing in business, technology and genetic engineering, work pro-bono along with a handful of young volunteers. Partnering with half a dozen international scientists and researchers, the group drew its conclusions in part from studies conducted in a number of locations, including Argentina, Brazil, France and the United States.

Earth Open Source’s study is only the latest report to question the safety of glyphosate, which is the top-ranked herbicide used in the United States. Exact figures are hard to come by because the U.S. Department of Agriculture stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008. The EPA estimates that the agricultural market used 180 to 185 million pounds of glyphosate between 2006 and 2007, while the non-agricultural market used 8 to 11 million pounds between 2005 and 2007, according to its Pesticide Industry Sales & Usage Report for 2006-2007 published in February, 2011.

The Earth Open Source study also reports that by 1993 the herbicide industry, including Monsanto, knew that visceral anomalies such as dilation of the heart could occur in rabbits at low and medium-sized doses. The report further suggests that since 2002, regulators with the European Commission have known that glyphosate causes developmental malformations in lab animals.

Even so, the commission’s health and consumer division published a final review report of glyphosate in 2002 that approved its use in Europe for the next 10 years.

Story continues below
Advertisement
Advertisement
As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BLV), a government agency conducting a review of glyphosate, told the European Commission that there was no evidence the compound causes birth defects, according to the report.

The agency reached that conclusion despite almost half a dozen industry studies that found glyphosate produced fetal malformations in lab animals, as well as an independent study from 2007 that found that Roundup induces adverse reproductive effects in the male offspring of a certain kind of rat.

German regulators declined to respond in detail for this story because they say they only learned of the Earth Open Source report last week. The regulators emphasized that their findings were based on public research and literature.

Although the European Commission originally planned to review glyphosate in 2012, it decided late last year not to do so until 2015. And it won’t review the chemical under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030, according to the report.

The European Commission told HuffPost that it wouldn’t comment on whether it was already aware of studies demonstrating the toxicity of glyphosate in 2002. But it said the commission was aware of the Earth Open Source study and had discussed it with member states.

“Germany concluded that study does not change the current safety assessment of gylphosate,” a commission official told HuffPost in an email. “This view is shared by all other member states.”

John Fagan, a doctor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry and one of the founders of Earth Open Source, acknowledged his group’s report offers no new laboratory research. Rather, he said the objective was for scientists to compile and evaluate the existing evidence and critique the regulatory response.

“We did not do the actual basic research ourselves,” said Fagan. “The purpose of this paper was to bring together and to critically evaluate all the evidence around the safety of glyphosate and we also considered how the regulators, particularly in Europe, have looked at that.”

For its part, Earth Open Source said that government approval of the ubiquitous herbicide has been rash and problematic.

“Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable,” wrote the report’s authors. “What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.

“They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so,” the authors added. “This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards.”

Monsanto spokeswoman Janice Person said in a statement that the Earth Open Source report presents no new findings.

“Based on our initial review, the Earth Open Source report does not appear to contain any new health or toxicological evidence regarding glyphosate,” Person said.

“Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate,” she said, “even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures.”

While Roundup has been associated with deformities in a host of laboratory animals, its impact on humans remains unclear. One laboratory study done in France in 2005 found that Roundup and glyphosate caused the death of human placental cells. Another study, conducted in 2009, found that Roundup caused total cell death in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells within 24 hours. Yet researchers have conducted few follow-up studies.

“Obviously there’s a limit to what’s appropriate in terms of testing poison on humans,” said Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which advocates against genetically modified food. “But if you look at the line of converging evidence, it points to a serious problem. And if you look at the animal feeding studies with genetically modified Roundup ready crops, there’s a consistent theme of reproductive disorders, which we don’t know the cause for because follow-up studies have not been done.”

“More independent research is needed to evaluate the toxicity of Roundup and glyphosate,” he added, “and the evidence that has already accumulated is sufficient to raise a red flag.”

Authorities have criticized Monsanto in the past for soft-pedaling Roundup. In 1996 New York State’s Attorney General sued Monsanto for describing Roundup as “environmentally friendly” and “safe as table salt.” Monsanto, while not admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to stop using the terms for promotional purposes and paid New York state $250,000 to settle the suit.

Regulators in the United States have said they are aware of the concerns surrounding glyphosate. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is required to reassess the safety and effectiveness all pesticides on a 15-year cycle through a process called registration review, is currently examining the compound.

“EPA initiated registration review of glyphosate in July 2009,” the EPA told HuffPost in a written statement. “EPA will determine if our previous assessments of this chemical need to be revised based on the results of this review. EPA issued a notice to the company [Monsanto] to submit human health and ecotoxicity data in September 2010.”

The EPA said it will also review a “wide range of information and data from other independent researchers” including Earth Open Source.

The agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs is in charge of the review and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if registration modifications need to be made or if the herbicide should continue to be sold at all.

Though skirmishes over the regulation of glyphosate are playing out at agencies across the U.S. and around the world, Argentina is at the forefront of the battle.

THE ARGENTINE MODEL

The Earth Open Source report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” comes years after Argentine scientists and residents targeted glyphosate, arguing that it caused health problems and environmental damage.

Farmers and others in Argentina use the weedkiller primarily on genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which covers nearly 50 million acres, or half of the country’s cultivated land area. In 2009 farmers sprayed that acreage with an estimated 200 million liters of glyphosate.

The Argentine government helped pull the country out of a recession in the 1990s in part by promoting genetically modified soy. Though it was something of a miracle for poor farmers, several years after the first big harvests residents near where the soy cop grew began reporting health problems, including high rates of birth defects and cancers, as well as the losses of crops and livestock as the herbicide spray drifted across the countryside.

Such reports gained further traction after an Argentine government scientist, Andres Carrasco conducted a study, “Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling” in 2009.

The study, published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology in 2010, found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. It also found that malformations caused in frog and chicken embryos by Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate were similar to human birth defects found in genetically modified soy-producing regions.

“The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” wrote Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires. “I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low.”

“In some cases this can be a powerful poison,” he concluded.

Argentina has not made any federal reforms based on this research and has not discussed the research publicly, Carrasco told HuffPost, except to mount a “close defense of Monsanto and it partners.”

The Ministry of Science and Technology has moved to distance the government from the study, telling media at the time the study was not commissioned by the government and had not been reviewed by scientific peers.

Ignacio Duelo, spokesman for the the Ministry of Science and Technology’s National Council for Scientific and Technical Research [CONICET], told HuffPost in an statement that while Carrasco is one of its researchers, CONICET has not vouched for or assessed his work.

Duelo said that the Ministry of Science is examining Carrasco’s report as part of a study of the possible harmful effects of the glyphosate. Officials, he added, are as yet unable to “reach a definitive conclusion on the effects of glyphosate on human health, though more studies are recommended, as more data is necessary.”

REGIONAL BANS

After Carrasco announced his findings in 2009, the Defense Ministry banned planting of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant soy on lands it rents to farmers, and a group of environmental lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of Argentina to implement a national ban on the use of glyphosate, including Monsanto’s Roundup product. But the ban was never adopted.

“A ban, if approved, would mean we couldn’t do agriculture in Argentina,” said Guillermo Cal, executive director of CASAFE, Argentina’s association of fertilizer companies, in a statement at the time.

In March 2010, a regional court in Argentina’s Santa Fe province banned the spraying of glyphosate and other herbicides near populated areas. A month later, the provincial government of Chaco province issued a report on health statistics from La Leonesa. The report, which was carried in the leftist Argentinian newspaper Página 12, showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region, the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province.

MORE QUESTIONS

Back in the United States, Don Huber, an emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction with Roundup contain a bacteria that may cause animal miscarriages.

After studying the bacteria, Huber wrote Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in February warning that the “pathogen appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.”

The bacteria is particularly prevalent in corn and soybean crops stricken by disease, according to Huber, who asked Vilsack to stop deregulating Roundup Ready crops. Critics such as Huber are particularly wary of those crops because scientists have genetically altered them to be immune to Roundup — and thus allow farmers to spray the herbicide liberally onto a field, killing weeds but allowing the crop itself to continue growing.

Monsanto is not the only company making glyphosate. China sells glyphosate to Argentina at a very low price, Carrasco said, and there are more than one hundred commercial formulations in the market. But Monsanto’s Roundup has the longest list of critics, in part because it dominates the market.

The growth in adoption of genetically modified crops has exploded since their introduction in 1996. According to Monsanto, an estimated 89 percent of domestic soybean crops were Roundup Ready in 2010, and as of 2010, there were 77.4 million acres of Roundup Ready soybeans planted, according to the Department of Agriculture.

In his letter to the Agriculture Department, Huber also commented on the herbicide, saying that the bacteria that he’s concerned about appears to be connected to use of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.

“It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders,” he wrote.

Huber said the Agriculture Department wrote him in early May and that he has had several contacts with the agency since then. But there’s little evidence that government officials have any intention of conducting the “multi-agency investigation” Huber requested.

Part of the problem may be that the USDA oversees genetically modified crops while the EPA watches herbicides, creating a potential regulatory loophole for products like Roundup, which relies on both to complete the system. When queried, USDA officials emphasized that they do not regulate pesticides or herbicides and declined to comment publicly on Huber’s letter.

A spokesman eventually conceded their scientists do study glyphosate. “USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s research with glyphosate began shortly after the discovery of its herbicidal activity in the mid 1970s,” said the USDA in a statement. “All of our research has been made public and much has gone through the traditional peer review process.”

While Huber acknowledged his research is far from conclusive, he said regulatory agencies must seek answers now. “There is much research that needs to be done yet,” he said. “But we can’t afford to wait the three to five years for peer-reviewed papers.”

While Huber’s claims have roiled the agricultural world and the blogosphere alike, he has fueled skeptics by refusing to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry.

At Purdue University, six of Huber’s former colleagues pointedly distanced themselves from his findings, encouraging crop producers and agribusiness personnel “to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims.”

Since it first introduced the chemical to the world in the 1970s, Monsanto has netted billions on its best-selling herbicide, though the company has faced stiffer competition since its patent expired in 2000 and it is reportedly working to revamp its strategy.

In a lengthy email, Person, the Monsanto spokeswoman, responded to critics, suggesting that the economic and environmental benefits of Roundup were being overlooked:

The authors of the report create an account of glyphosate toxicity from a selected set of scientific studies, while they ignored much of the comprehensive data establishing the safety of the product. Regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that glyphosate is not a reproductive toxin or teratogen (cause of birth defects) based on in-depth review of the comprehensive data sets available.
Earth Open Source authors take issue with the decision by the European Commission to place higher priority on reviewing other pesticide ingredients first under the new EU regulations, citing again the flawed studies as the rationale. While glyphosate and all other pesticide ingredients will be reviewed, the Commission has decided that glyphosate appropriately falls in a category that doesn’t warrant immediate attention.

“The data was there but the regulators were glossing over it,” said John Fagan of Earth Open Source, “and as a result it was accepted in ways that we consider really questionable.”

CORNERING THE INDUSTRY?

Although the EPA has said it wants to evaluate more evidence of glyphosate’s human health risk as part of a registration review program, the agency is not doing any studies of its own and is instead relying on outside data — much of which comes from the agricultural chemicals industry it seeks to regulate.

“EPA ensures that each registered pesticide continues to meet the highest standards of safety to protect human health and the environment,” the agency told HuffPost in a statement. “These standards have become stricter over the years as our ability to evaluate the potential effects of pesticides has increased. The Agency placed glyphosphate into registration review. Registration review makes sure that as the ability to assess risks and as new information becomes available, the Agency carefully considers the new information to ensure pesticides do not pose risks of concern to people or the environment.”

Agribusiness giants, including Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta and BASF, will, as part of a 19-member task force, generate much of the data the EPA is seeking. But the EPA has emphasized that the task force is only “one of numerous varied third-party sources that EPA will rely on for use in its registration review.”

The EPA is hardly the only industry regulator that relies heavily on data supplied by the agrochemical industry itself.

“The regulation of pesticides has been significantly skewed towards the manufacturers interests where state-of-the-art testing is not done and adverse findings are typically distorted or denied,” said Jeffrey Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology. “The regulators tend to use the company data rather than independent sources, and the company data we have found to be inappropriately rigged to force the conclusion of safety.”

“We have documented time and time again scientists who have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, denied funding, threatened, gagged and transferred as a result of the pressure put on them by the biotech industry,” he added.

Such suppression has sometimes grown violent, Smith noted. Last August, when Carrasco and his team of researchers went to give a talk in La Leonesa they were intercepted by a mob of about a hundred people. The attack landed two people in the hospital and left Carrasco and a colleague cowering inside a locked car. Witnesses said the angry crowd had ties to powerful economic interests behind the local agro-industry and that police made little effort to interfere with the beating, according to the human rights group Amnesty International.

Fagan told HuffPost that among developmental biologists who are not beholden to the chemical industry or the biotechnology industry, there is strong recognition that Carrasco’s research is credible.

“For me as a scientist, one of the reasons I made the effort to do this research into the literature was to really satisfy the question myself as to where the reality of the situation lies,” he added. “Having thoroughly reviewed the literature on this, I feel very comfortable in standing behind the conclusions Professor Carrasco came to and the broader conclusions that we come to in our paper

“We can’t figure out how regulators could have come to the conclusions that they did if they were taking a balanced look at the science, even the science that was done by the chemical industry itself.”

Gardening To Eat Healthier

By now, you’ve probably got some plants in your garden. Tomatoes, summer squash, basil, peppers, onions, cucumbers, winter squash, salad greens (tend to bolt in the heat), beets, etc. This is going to provide some very tasty and nutritious meals this summer, and if you have an abundance, you can even preserve some for the winter. We’ll talk more about that in another post. You’re off to a great start if you have anything planted! If you don’t, go ahead and plant something….you’ll be really glad you did. There is now some concern for the types of foods that are being grown and put out in the store. Where the problem lies  is in the use of GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds which have roundup (glyphosate) already in them. These seeds are being planted and used for food to feed people. The environmental health news says studies show that roundup kills human cells, especially embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells. The purpose of these GMO seeds is to kill insects when they bite into the plant, and also for farmers to be able to spray their whole crop with roundup, with out the roundup killing the food plant itself. The mystery of the disappearing bees which pollinate crops could be linked to this very thing. The seeds actually have Bt (bacterial thurengensis) which farmers use on their plants to kill bugs, inserted into the DNA of the seed, which makes it a thousand times stronger than when the farmer sprinkles it on his plant. Also it can’t be washed off when it rains or when watered. The food products that are GMO are as much as 85% of U.S. corn, 91% of soybeans and 88% of cotton (cottonseed oil is used in processed foods) The FDA does not require foods to be labeled as gmo or having gmo in them. Other genetically modified foods include soy, canola, corn, cottonseed oil, Hawaiian papaya, sugar beets, alfalfa, zucchini, and yellow squash. We just need to be vigilant about our health and our family’s health and just say no to gmo….Grow your own food if you can, and buy heirloom seed because heirloom seed is the only seed now which is natural and normal the way God made it, and can actually reproduce itself from the seeds. Hybrid seeds and now “terminator” seeds cannot reproduce and it forces you to keep buying the seed every year, and who knows whats in them anymore? What everyone wants is good health, and now, to have that, you have to stay on top of what is going on in the world and not take things for granted. If you haven’t planted your garden, or if you don’t have a yard, don’t despair because you can grow your garden in wide pots or you can put some 12″ wide untreated lumber together into little squares and fill it with soil. Use some of the moisture retaining soil if you grow in pots, because they tend to dry out faster in the summertime. You’ll be glad you did this. Here is a helpful link to help you find heirloom seeds—> Just go to the picture to the right that says “Survive The Coming Food Shortage” and click on it, and it will take you there, or click on this link—>   http://images.ultracart.com/aff/3D74085E35B2E0013079F7B798051600/index.html