Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Peer reviewed toxicology paper examining the relationship between Roundup and celiac disease.
Shouldn't eat wheat anyway, it just make you fat. But that is a separate issue.
Time to get lunch, maybe I will get some Hot Pockets®, the ones that were recalled due to containing filthy, contaminated meat. Don't worry, the recall only affects 8 million pounds of meat.
"If we don't loosen up some money, this sucker is going down." -GW Bush, 2008
“Lack of proof that something is true does not prove that it is not true - when you want to believe.” -Humpty Dumpty, 2014
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” Prof. Albert Bartlett
We've just made history by stopping the King Amendment from being passed as part of the 2014 Farm Bill. It would have made it illegal for states to individually require the labeling of food made with GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
Now it's time to make history once again.
In 2007, candidate Obama promised a federal mandate that would require all foods produced with GMOs to be labeled as such. We agree with candidate Obama that "Americans have a right to know what they are buying." - Now it's time to hold President Obama to his promise.
Judson Parker
Executive Director
Campaign for Safe Food
This message was sent by Campaign for Safe Food using the Change.org system. You received this email because you signed a petition started by Campaign for Safe Food on Change.org: "U.S. House of Representatives: Stop the King Amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill." Change.org does not endorse contents of this message.
I have been watching ZS becoming familar with it, to start trading it again etc.
Doing some research and came across this Report and thought I would share it.
I read this through and the author asked - if the earlier assumed benefits (such as) are there they why GMO?.
One of the evils of GMO is that that splice in genes for the plants to produce in massive quantities - compared with natural crops - the items that the plants produce naturally to help protect themselves against insects. At the high levels insects become immune to these defenses.
So one of the real reasons for GMO is to render ineffective techniques of natural farmers (organic farmers).
The pure evil of Mon(ey)- sat(an)-o and their ilk is to destroy the environment, poison the land and own all the seed and herbicide of "food"/poison production - no doubt with cross ownership of manufactured foods, manufactured diseases, and manufactured pharmaceutical dependance of cancer clients (oops "patients") on drugs.
A wise person once said
"You cannot serve two masters - Mammon and God"
I wonder what reception Mon(ey)- sat(an)-o will receive in the next life?
If genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to escape from captivity they could succeed in breeding and passing their genes into the wild, Canadian researchers have found. Their research, published in Evolutionary Applications, explores the potential reproductive implications of GM salmon as they are considered for commercial farming.
Probably not a good idea to eat any fish from the Pacific Ocean for the next two hundred years or so due to Cesium 137 contamination from Fukushima, a minor inconvenience made worthwhile by the enduring benefits of nuclear power generation.
"If we don't loosen up some money, this sucker is going down." -GW Bush, 2008
“Lack of proof that something is true does not prove that it is not true - when you want to believe.” -Humpty Dumpty, 2014
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” Prof. Albert Bartlett
First Lady Michelle Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announce in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014 proposed guidelines for local school wellness policies and roll out of breakfast and lunch programs for schools that serve low-income communities.
Are those lunches going to be non-GMO? I don't think so, with Vilsack around.
Dow Chemical calls its new “Enlist”-brand of 2,4-D-resistant GMO crops a “blockbuster.” Monsanto similarly touts its new, highly-volatile dicamba-resistant soybean.
We call them toxic and dangerous.
But unfortunately, the USDA, which is more committed to protecting Dow and Monsanto’s profits than it is to protecting your health, is set to approve these new “Agent Orange” and dicamba-resistant corn and soy crops any day now. And when the poisonous residues of these two super-toxic herbicides contaminate the human food supply, in literally thousands of non-organic processed foods and ingredients, they won’t be labeled.
We need your help to get GMO crops and foods labeled—and banned! So far, we’ve raised almost $47,000 toward our $200,000 goal. Can you help us raise another $153,000 by midnight, March 31? Click here for instructions on how to donate online, or by phone or email.
If we reach our goal, two of our allies—Mercola.com and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps—will pitch in to match our $200,000 by donating $100,000 each. We’ll use that $400,000 to fight for state GMO labeling laws, and for county bans on GMO crops.
Dow’s Enlist-brand corn and soy are genetically engineered with 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), a toxic chemical that was part of the deadly Vietnam-era Agent Orange cocktail that has destroyed millions of lives. Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybeans are a close cousin of these Agent Orange crops.
2,4-D has been linked to liver damage, endocrine disruption, depressed thyroid hormone levels, infertility and cancer. 2,4-D-resistant crops will be able to withstand huge amounts of 2,4-D poison—poison that will eventually wind up not just on our food, but in our soil, water and air.
The Enlist brand is just one of many increasingly toxic GMO crops in Dow’s GMO pipeline. Dow is “spending millions of dollars and racking up hundreds of patents,” according to a recent article in the Indianapolis Business Journal, which also reported, “Dow has more seeds, herbicides and fungicides about to reach the market than it has at any time since 1989.”
The U.S. government and its regulatory agencies are not going to protect us from these escalating assaults on our health and our environment. It’s up to us to drive crops like Dow’s Agent Orange corn and soybeans, and Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soy off the market.
The anti-GMO movement has come a long way in the past two years. We are poised for victory. But we must win the upcoming decisive battles of 2014 in the frontline states of Vermont and Oregon, and intensify the struggle in other states and counties.
Please help us win this fight. Every donation made by midnight, March 31, no matter how large or small, will bring us closer to our goal of $200,000—and that much closer to matching funds from Mercola.com and Dr. Bronner’s.
Thank you!
Ronnie Cummins
National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund
P.S. Funds donated directly to campaigns must be raised through the Organic Consumers Fund, our allied 501(c)4 lobbying arm. If you need to make a tax-deductible donation, please donate to our 501(c)3 nonprofit. Your donation will indirectly support our GMO bans and labeling laws by funding our ongoing education and media work.
Big Food has found its Biggest Fool. Politico announced this morning that Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) will introduce the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s bill to kill GMO labeling.
April fool’s joke? We wish.
But the joke may be on Pompeo, when consumers nationwide light up his phone lines and sign our petition with demands that he abandon plans to sell out consumers by helping Monsanto and Big Food pass a law to preempt state and federal GMO labeling laws.
After you take action, please call Rep. Pompeo (202-225-6216) and post on his Facebook page and let him know that you are one of the 90 percent of consumers that want a mandatory GMO labeling law. You can also let him know that a bill written by the food industry should not be used to deny states their constitutional right to pass laws governing food safety.
The GMA’s proposed legislation calls for a federal, voluntary GMO labeling scheme, which the FDA recently said it also supports.
Rep. Pompeo is just plain foolish if he thinks he will be reelected after he supports an industry-written law that goes against what 90 percent of consumers in this country want.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Rep. Mike Pompeo: Don’t be a fool. Don’t support a bill that tramples the rights of states to pass GMO labeling laws, and the rights of consumers to know what’s in their food!
Whether or not you live in Kansas, please help us flood Rep. Pompeo’s phone lines today!
- Katherine and the OCA team
PS Organic Consumer website is not loading, so either they are messing with people accessing their website or they are receiving too many hits. Anyway, please let's stop this foolish bill from being passed!
Vermont will become the first state to enact a law requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients after the governor signed the bill into law on Thursday afternoon. The bill will go into effect in July 2016.
"I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food. The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of this bill," Gov. Peter Shumlin (D-Vt.) said in a statement after the bill passed. "I wholeheartedly agree with them and look forward to signing this bill into law.”
The Leg. has spoken: #Vt'ers deserve to know what is in their food. I agree and look forward to signing the #GMO labeling bill into law.
However, the law may not withstand legal challenges from major food companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co - the leading producers of GMO crops. They are widely expected to sue the state over the law. To defend the legislation, Vermont allocated a $1.5 million legal defense fund in the measure, to be paid for with settlements won by the state. However, even this amount might not be enough to cover the state’s legal bills.
As RT reported, Monsanto, DuPont, Kraft Foods Co. and others previously led the charge against the similar labeling legislation in California and Washington state, grossly outspending supporters of the measure that was eventually defeated in both states, with anti-labeling groups spending $22 million of the $28 million total spent on that campaign in Washington.
“There is no doubt that there are those who will work to derail this common-sense legislation,” Shumlin said. “But I believe this bill is the right thing to do and will gain momentum elsewhere after our action here in Vermont.”
The Center for Food Safety says there are currently 63 active genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bills in 23 states, and 32 bills have been introduced since January, the Guardian reports. A bill that would require labels on food products containing ingredients from genetically modified crops passed a hurdle in the New York Assembly Thursday morning. Maine and Connecticut are the only US states that have passed GMO labeling laws, though their proposals would only go into effect if and when surrounding states also pass similar laws. GMO labeling is required in 64 countries, including the European Union.
"Companies shouldn't be able to do an end run by slapping a ‘natural’ label on a product that contains GMOs as, unfortunately, they are allowed to do today," Urvashi Rangan, executive director of the Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center, said according to the Guardian. "Leave it to the state of Vermont to pick up where the FDA has left off when it comes to defining natural."
Opponents of GMO labeling laws argue the labels would create a false perception that the foods are unhealthy, despite a lack of scientific evidence, Hillshire Brands Co. Chief Executive Officer Sean Connolly told Bloomberg in an interview. If the labeling is going to be required, he would prefer the regulations come from the federal government.
The Washington Post looked into ways the food industry might mount a legal challenge, and ways labeling proponents may counter those arguments:
The first argument is that requiring GMO labeling is a violation of commercial free speech rights under the First Amendment, and that states don’t have the ability to restrict commercial speech. Those that favor getting information on genetic engineering to consumers could argue the label conveys “purely factual information in support of a legitimate government interest,” according to a memo to the Post from Emord & Associates, a food and drug law firm. The state will have to prove that it meets four requirements to limit commercial speech. A labeling law will likely pass either test, the Post says.
GMO producers might argue that federal law trumps state law. In April, Congress introduced a bill that would ban states from implementing their own labeling laws when it comes to food containing genetically engineered ingredients. But that bill has not passed, and the Post’s legal analysis found that the bill is not preempted by federal law.
Monsanto and its fellow GMO proponents might also say the Vermont law interferes with interstate commerce. The courts would have to consider whether the bill explicitly favors commerce within the state over commerce between states, as well as whether any burden on interstate commerce - which the Post says the increased cost of GMO labeling would be - are fairly balanced with local benefits within the state. Labeling advocates point to the benefits of protecting public health and the environment.
But Connolly, the Hillshire CEO, disagrees that those benefits outweigh the increased cost burden. “If you put yourself in the shoes of a manufacturer, it’s not a practical concept,” he told Bloomberg. “You can’t have customized labels state by state. That would dramatically drive up the cost to consumers even higher, which is certainly not in their best interest when there’s nothing wrong with the ingredients to begin with.”
But not all food makers are against the idea. Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont-based ice cream company with a history of supporting hormone-free and natural ingredients, supports the state’s law. “As the campaign to label food products made with GMO ingredients moves across the states, including Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s is proud to stand with the growing consumer movement for transparency and the right to know what’s in our food supply by supporting mandatory GMO labeling legislation,” their website says.
Transitioning ingredients to non-GMO is complex. We break it down using a pint of Phish Food. Our Stance on GMO | Ben & Jerry's pic.twitter.com/0SIuOBw87c
— Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) April 30, 2014
The company gave away free ice cream at the bill signing.
.@GovPeterShumlin speaking at the signing ceremony for the Vermont #GMO labeling bill. We LOVE #VT ! pic.twitter.com/X8vmb7k5ea
— Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) May 8, 2014
Despite the potential legal challenges, Vermont’s legislators overwhelmingly voted for GMO labeling. The state House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 114-30, while the state Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 28-2.
"I just don't have the scientific background to understand the complexity of the issue and don't really need to. I represent the people, and their will was made overwhelmingly clear," Democratic state Rep. Paul Ralston told the Guardian about why he voted for the bill. "It's a basic principle of the right to know. That's the primary reason."
