April 16, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
“Finally the FDA does something right. But instead of limiting the use of antibiotics, they should be banning it altogether.” –KTRN
After serious health campaigning led to a United States judge ordering the FDA to remove approval for antibiotic use on common animal feed products, the FDA is now limiting the usage of antibiotics among the food supply.
However, the FDA is not completely revoking approval for the antibiotics, only placing an order for farmers to stop using the drugs solely to help animals grow — what’s more, the farmers are given another 3 years before any real legal action goes into effect. The initial proposal was introduced back in 1977, and the FDA has stalled for decades to give a final answer.
That means that antibiotics used to ‘treat’ animal diseases, or even ‘prevent’ future diseases, will be perfectly fine under these guidelines.
The result may have to do with the livestock corporate juggernauts, who refused to admit that the mass drugging of animals with superbug-breeding antibiotics posed any real threat to the public.
Many consumer activists, such as Laura Rogers from the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, fear that these new guidelines are so broad that they mean virtually nothing.
‘If you were to ask me what’s the biggest gap, it’s that they’ve left way too much wiggle room [leeway] when it comes to preventative uses,’ said Rogers. ‘That’s going to have to be shored up [i.e., made more specific] in order for this action to be meaningful.’
March 16, 2012
By Megan Bedard
“This is why you shouldn’t trust the government when dealing with what you eat. Your own common sense i smuch more effective.” –KTRN
At a time when news of recalls is hardly news, pinched pennies are going to make keeping the public safe even harder.
Plans to create five new centers to fight foodborne illness will likely be delayed due to a shortage of federal funds, CIDRAP News reported Tuesday. The Food Safety Integrated Centers of Excellence—which are estimated to cost $2.75 million—were included in the Food Safety Modernization Act, signed by President Obama in January of 2011.
CIDRAP spoke with Craig Hedberg, PhD, a food safety expert at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, who explained that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) put the project on hold after examining its 2012 fiscal budget. The independent working group recruited by the CDC to develop criteria for evaluating the centers was informed that the centers wouldn’t come to fruition until more funding is available.
Such news is unlikely to be welcome among the public, whose confidence in their food supply reportedly dropped by 4 percent in 2011, when only 35 percent of Americans agreed strongly with the statement “I am confident in the safety of the food I eat.”
February 27, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
Lawmakers in Wyoming have introduced a bill that would compel the state to prepare for a complete collapse of the federal government, laying plans for an alternate currency, a standing army raised via a military draft, and an aircraft carrier.
“House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government,” reports the Wyoming Star-Tribune.
Compared to the rest of the country, Wyoming’s public finances are in a relatively good condition, a fact that has spurred lawmakers to protect the state against contagion from other areas that could develop in the aftermath of a massive financial collapse.
The bill lays the groundwork for how the state would respond in the event of a sudden devaluation of the dollar or “a situation in which the federal government has no effective power or authority over the people of the United States.”
“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”
The bill has to pass two more House votes before it can be considered by the Senate. If passed, the task force would have until December 1, 2012 to submit a report to the governor detailing the continuity of government plan.
February 8, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
As part of its effort to encourage business owners to spy on their customers, the FBI has labeled the bulk purchase of food as a potential indication of terrorist activity, despite the fact that FEMA itself last year purchased $1 billion dollars worth of storable food.
A flyer aimed at Military Surplus stores produced under the auspices of the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism project, encourages owners to report people who “make bulk purchases of items to include….meals ready to eat”.
According to the flyer, the FBI advises store owners to demand ID’s from all new customers, as well as asking them questions about their purchase and being aware of “suspicious statements”.
The flyer also characterizes paying with cash or “demanding identity privacy” as an indication of terrorism.
The characterization by the feds of those who choose to protect themselves against rising food prices or a potential interruption in the food supply by purchasing storable food as potential terrorists is not only chilling – it is also completely hypocritical.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) itself ordered $1 billion dollars worth of dehydrated food in just one instance last year, purchasing a total of 420 million meals.
Are we to follow the FBI’s advice and treat this as a suspicious activity? Should FEMA be reported to other law enforcement agencies as a potential terrorist threat?
Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security is also busy stockpiling storable food and seed varieties in underground bunkers as part of preparations for domestic emergencies. Under its Resolve to be Ready program, the DHS even encouraged Americans to store food as part of a “basic emergency supply kit”.
Should we all be reporting Janet Napolitano to the See Something, Say Something hotline as a potential Al-Qaeda radical?
February 7, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
“Fluoride isn’t just in the tap water anymore – it’s everywhere.” –KTRN
Fluoridated tap water and toothpaste are oftentimes considered the main sources of fluoride exposure, but it turns out that common food items could also be largely contributing to your fluoride intake.
According to fluoride expert, Jeff Green, who has been actively protesting and studying the effects of fluoride on the body for other 15 years, one common food product contains up to 180 times more fluoride than your fluoridated tap water!
According to Green, the culprit is non-organic food, but not just one kind.
If you’re still eating conventionally-farmed food products, you may be unknowingly exposing yourself to extreme levels of fluoride. Green says this is made possible by fluoride going incognito within the food supply in a very concerning way:
‘Cryolite is actually sodium aluminum fluoride… This sodium aluminum fluoride is especially effective at killing bugs,’ Green says. ‘It’s also very sticky, so when they spray it, it’s more likely to stick on your produce, unless you’re… really working at trying to get it off of it.’
February 3, 2012
By Andre Evans
As awareness of genetically modified food and the dangers associated increase, actions are being taken to eliminate the issue entirely.
With countries destroying their GMO crops, scientists showing the facts, and individuals voicing their discontent on the matter, there is a large and growing contingent across countries that are taking action to preserve the integrity of our food supply. China is the latest nation to take a stand against GMO crops.
China recently suspended the distribution of genetically modified rice within its commercial food supplies.
Rice, being perhaps the most common and prominently used food within the Chinese diet makes its safety and reliability very significant. Acting as a staple food for over 1.3 billion Chinese people, any compromise to the integrity of their food supply should be accordingly assessed and acted against based upon the interests of the population.
This action helps to preserve the sovereignty and safety of their food supply, something that largely must still be addressed in our own country.
In the United States GMO foods are not only accepted by loose regulation standards, but are not even labeled appropriately.
The dangers of GMO foods are so great that they are still not — and may never be — fully assessable. With a large number of documented negative effects on its consumers, GMO foods are a highly dangerous threat to individual health alone.
If this weren’t enough, genetically engineered crops actually threaten the integrity of the food supply altogether by devastating the environment with powerful superweeds and mutant bugs. The nature of genetic engineering is so volatile that unless properly handled, the integrity of the entire world food supply could be ruined.
February 2, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
“Should anyone be surprised by this? Of course Monsanto has infiltrated the government. How else have they gotten away with it for so long?” –KTRN
Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.
What the leaked documents reveal — Military style trade wars, government corruption
In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?
The biotech juggernaut managed to infiltrate the FDA positions responsible for the approval of rBGH, going as far as instating the company’s own Margaret Miller as Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services. After assuming this position, Miller reviewed her own report on the safety and effectiveness of rBGH.
There is a great article that says that a glass of milk (not raw, organic milk from grass-fed cows) contains 20 different painkillers, antibiotics, and growth hormones. This explains how the food supply is giving us massive amounts of drugs! There are pharmaceutical drugs and other chemicals in the meat, food, and milk.
What they’re not telling you is that the chemicals and the drugs build up in your system over time. They’re also not telling you that what is consumed in a day between the meat and the dairy alone, the amount of drugs you’re getting is a problem. When you start adding it up, it causes all types of problems.
This is why simply going to a 100% organic food diet is good for you. This is why people started feeling so much better right away. Forget the fact that they’re getting more nutrients; it’s the fact that they’re getting away from the toxins and the drugs.
Yours in health,
July 6th, 2011
By: Mike Adams
Even as the veggie blame game is now under way across the EU, where a super resistant strain of e.coli is sickening patients and filling hospitals in Germany, virtually no one is talking about how e.coli could have magically become resistant to eight different classes of antibiotic drugs and then suddenly appeared in the food supply.
This particular e.coli variation is a member of the O104 strain, and O104 strains are almost never (normally) resistant to antibiotics. In order for them to acquire this resistance, they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the “mutation pressure” that nudges them toward complete drug immunity.
So if you’re curious about the origins of such a strain, you can essentially reverse engineer the genetic code of the e.coli and determine fairly accurately which antibiotics it was exposed to during its development. This step has now been done (see below), and when you look at the genetic decoding of this O104 strain now threatening food consumers across the EU, a fascinating picture emerges of how it must have come into existence.
The genetic code reveals the history
When scientists at Germany’s Robert Koch Institute decoded the genetic makeup of the O104 strain, they found it to be resistant to all the following classes and combinations of antibiotics:
• nalidixic acid
• amoxicillin / clavulanic acid
In addition, this O104 strain posses an ability to produce special enzymes that give it what might be called “bacteria superpowers” known technically as ESBLs:
“Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs) are enzymes that can be produced by bacteria making them resistant to cephalosporins e.g. cefuroxime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime – which are the most widely used antibiotics in many hospitals,” explains the Health Protection Agency in the UK.
On top of that, this O104 strain possesses two genes — TEM-1 and CTX-M-15 — that “have been making doctors shudder since the 1990s,” reports The Guardian. And why do they make doctors shudder? Because they’re so deadly that many people infected with such bacteria experience critical organ failure and simply die.
Bioengineering a deadly superbug
So how, exactly, does a bacterial strain come into existence that’s resistant to over a dozen antibiotics in eight different drug classes and features two deadly gene mutations plus ESBL enzyme capabilities?
There’s really only one way this happens (and only one way) — you have to expose this strain of e.coli to all eight classes of antibiotics drugs. Usually this isn’t done at the same time, of course: You first expose it to penicillin and find the surviving colonies which are resistant to penicillin. You then take those surviving colonies and expose them to tetracycline. The surviving colonies are now resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. You then expose them to a sulfa drug and collect the surviving colonies from that, and so on. It is a process of genetic selection done in a laboratory with a desired outcome. This is essentially how some bioweapons are engineered by the U.S. Army in its laboratory facility in Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
Although the actual process is more complicated than this, the upshot is that creating a strain of e.coli that’s resistant to eight classes of antibiotics requires repeated, sustained expose to those antibiotics. It is virtually impossible to imagine how this could happen all by itself in the natural world. For example, if this bacteria originated in the food (as we’ve been told), then where did it acquire all this antibiotic resistance given the fact that antibiotics are not used in vegetables?
When considering the genetic evidence that now confronts us, it is difficult to imagine how this could happen “in the wild.” While resistance to a single antibiotic is common, the creation of a strain of e.coli that’s resistant to eight different classes of antibiotics — in combination — simply defies the laws of genetic permutation and combination in the wild. Simply put, this superbug e.coli strain could not have been created in the wild. And that leaves only one explanation for where it really came from: the lab.
Engineered and then released into the wild
The evidence now points to this deadly strain of e.coli being engineered and then either being released into the food supply or somehow escaping from a lab and entering the food supply inadvertently. If you disagree with that conclusion — and you’re certainly welcome to — then you are forced to conclude that this octobiotic superbug (immune to eight classes of antibiotics) developed randomly on its own… and that conclusion is far scarier than the “bioengineered” explanation because it means octobiotic superbugs can simply appear anywhere at any time without cause. That would be quite an exotic theory indeed.
My conclusion actually makes more sense: This strain of e.coli was almost certainly engineered and then released into the food supply for a specific purpose. What would that purpose be? It’s obvious, I hope.
It’s all problem, reaction, solution at work here. First cause a PROBLEM (a deadly strain of e.coli in the food supply). Then wait for the public REACTION (huge outcry as the population is terrorized by e.coli). In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (total control over the global food supply and the outlawing of raw sprouts, raw milk and raw vegetables).
That’s what this is all about, of course. The FDA relied on the same phenomenon in the USA when pushing for its recent “Food Safety Modernization Act” which essentially outlaws small family organic farms unless they lick the boots of FDA regulators. The FDA was able to crush farm freedom in America by piggybacking on the widespread fear that followed e.coli outbreaks in the U.S. food supply. When people are afraid, remember, it’s not difficult to get them to agree to almost any level of regulatory tyranny. And making people afraid of their food is a simple matter… a few government press releases emailed to the mainstream media news affiliates is all it takes.
June 27th, 2011
He who controls the seed controls the food supply; and he who controls the food supply controls the world. There is no question that Monsanto is on a mission to monopolize the conventional seed market. In fact, they are steadfastly working towards the goal of creating a world where 100% of all commercial seeds are genetically modified and patented- basically a world where natural seeds are extinct.
Unfortunately for the global community Monsanto is accomplishing their purpose. They currently own 90% of the world’s patents for GMO seed including cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola.
Yep, the creators of chemicals that will go down in history for their toxicity and horrific side effects, is attempting to take over the world’s seed supply. Ask yourself- do you really want companies such as BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow involved with your food? Sadly, to a large extent they already are. These Monsanto chemical and GMO cronies all share genetically engineered traits and create the patented herbicides and pesticides that GMO crops require to thrive.
Monsanto is infamous for taking advantage of small farmers, and with the advent of MoU’s they are doing so with governmental license. Countries like India, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand have all executed MoU’s with Monsanto. MoU’s or memorandum’s of understanding permit Monsanto to use publicly owned lands to create so called demonstration farms (GMO breeding camps) which in turn -at least in the case of Rajasthan – are subsidized by the government.
Monsanto literally takes farmer seeds, creates genetically engineered copycat versions, and then retains all intellectual property rights. Dr. Vandana Shiva, Executive Director of the Navdanya Trust, an Indian organization committed to organic biodiversity, states that “the MoU’s will in effect, facilitate bio-piracy of Rajasthan’s rich biodiversity of draught -resilient crops …. by failing to have any clauses that respect the Biodiversity Act and the Farmers’ Rights Act, the MoU’s promote bio-piracy and legalize the great seed robbery.”
It is common knowledge that GMO seeds are much worse than conventional ones. As with all of their agreements, Monsanto shields itself from any liability- so when the Monsanto’s promises of higher yields with less work ring hollow, when farmers crops fail, or when mass suicides are committed because of crop failure and spirit crushing debt- Monsanto presses on with no worries.
Farmers that sign up for Monsanto’s seeds of destruction find themselves hooked. Year after year, no matter what prices are being charged, they are dependent on GMO seeds for new crops because GMO seeds – the bastardized versions they are – don’t regenerate.
Monsanto has no qualms about robbing farmers that don’t play poker with them. As a mater of fact; it makes a business of it. Conventional and organic farmers in both Canada and the U.S., who have the misfortune of having lands that border GMO farms, often end up with trace contamination in their crops, making them (if organic), unsuitable for sale. Monsanto actually uses this situation against farmers and files patent infringement claims that they often win.
The result farm owners are left with exorbitant legal bills and fines often forcing them to shut down: clearing away Monsanto competition. In a savvy move for survival, a preemptive suit on behalf of almost 300,000 plaintiffs seeking legal safe harbor, has been filed in New York.
Monsanto’s product has changed from poison to food, but it has held true to its history of violating the rights and health of people around the globe. Monsanto is a 100% committed to the sale of their seeds of destruction no matter what it takes: bullying, infiltration of high government offices with company friendly individuals, or intimidation. The organic movement has taken up the standard against Monsanto’s machinations in court as well as through grassroots education and activist efforts. The organic revolution is Monsanto’s Achilles heel, and its goal is a world without Monsanto.