Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Pesticides DO NOT Wash Off Our Foods - Only 15% Ever Leaves The Food Item By Washing.
There is no eliminating pesticides from our foods once it is sprayed onto plants (and this includes right onto the fruit or vegetable growing on that plant). And companies like Monsanto are ‘breeding pesticides’ right into our food crops with genetically modified organisms (GMO).
A study of children who didn’t live close to farms were given organic foods for two weeks - it showed those children had incredibly lower levels of pesticides in their urine samples during those two weeks. However, as soon as they were given conventionally grown foods again – those contaminated with pesticides – the levels of poison in their urine spiked again. Remember, these pesticides can’t be washed off.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566222/
A study of children who didn’t live close to farms were given organic foods for two weeks - it showed those children had incredibly lower levels of pesticides in their urine samples during those two weeks. However, as soon as they were given conventionally grown foods again – those contaminated with pesticides – the levels of poison in their urine spiked again. Remember, these pesticides can’t be washed off.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566222/
GMO Crops Do Not Produce Greater Yield - NON-GMO Crops Flourish...
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290988/
On the "GE yields more crops front"...we know this to be false. Multiple studies, both peer and industry, have concluded as much. Interesting article references it very plainly:
Jack Heinemann, genetic engineer and author of a study found here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UhPCCXrn_IV)
Original Article where below excerpt is taken is found here: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_claims_probably_false_partner/
"Heinemann decided to look at the productivity and sustainability of the U.S. agricultural system. And when examining sustainability, he means it in a very literal sense: can this system be sustained over time? Is U.S. agriculture resilient or is it highly susceptible to variations in weather, pests or other stressors?
Instead of examining North America alone, he chose to measure it against Western Europe. Therefore, he is able to measure not just whether North American agriculture improved over time, but whether or not it improved more or less than a similar region. Agriculture on both sides of the Atlantic is fairly similar, with the major exception the adoption of GE crops.
Both the U.S. and Canada were early adopters, whereas Western Europe did not adopt GE crops. The study compared crops that are common to both regions: corn and wheat in the U.S. and Western Europe, and canola in Canada and Western Europe. Almost all of the corn and canola grown in North America is genetically modified, whereas no GE wheat is grown in either region studied. Therefore, the study could isolate whether any increases in yields were thanks to genetic engineering or simply due to conventional crop breeding.
Even in genetically engineered plants, most of the genes in the plant come from conventional breeding. Think about the new sheep genetically engineered by scientists in Uruguay to – no joke – glow in the dark. Its DNA contains genes that tell its cells to make wool, hooves, four legs, a head, and everything else that makes it a sheep. Only a few genes – the ones that make the sheep glow in the dark – were inserted via genetic engineering. If the sheep happens to have the best wool for making sweaters or it produces the best milk for making cheese, that’s due to conventional breeding and not genetic engineering.
The same is true for crops. One or more genetically engineered traits can be added to any variety of corn, soybeans, or canola. Most of those crops’ traits come from conventional breeding. If a GE crop does particularly well or particularly poorly, the success or failure could be due to the genes inserted via genetic engineering… or it could be due to all of its other conventionally bred genes.
Heinemann’s group found that between 1985 and 2010, Western Europe has experienced yield gains at a faster rate than North America for all three crops measured. That means that the U.S., which grows mostly GE corn, and Canada, which grows mostly GE canola, are not doing as well as Europe, which grows non-GE corn and canola. The increases in corn yields in the U.S. have remained relatively consistent both before and after the introduction of GE corn. Furthermore, Western Europe is experiencing faster yield gains than America for non-GE wheat.
What does this mean? “There’s no evidence that [GE crops] have given us higher yields,” says Heinemann. “The evidence points exclusively to breeding as the input that has increased yields over time. And there is evidence that it is constraining yields in the North American agroecosystem.” He offers two potential reasons why. First, he says, “By making the germplasm so much narrower, the average yield goes down because the low yields are so low.”
In other words, the lack of biodiversity among major crops today results in bigger losses during bad years.
Companies that make GE crops benefit from a relatively new law, passed in 1994, allowing for much stricter intellectual property rights on seeds. Previously, a company had the rights to sell its seed. A farmer could buy that seed and cross it with other seeds to produce locally adapted varieties. He or she could then save and replant those varieties. Now, the company can patent the genes inside the plant. It doesn’t matter if a farmer breeds Monsanto’s corn with a local variety and produces a brand new type of corn. If the resulting seeds have Monsanto’s patented gene in them, then Monsanto owns them. The farmer cannot save his own seeds.
This means that seed companies now control the amount of biodiversity available to farmers. And the number of varieties they sell has been going down. For example, the study found that in 2005, farmers could choose from nearly 9,000 different varieties of corn. The majority (57 percent) were GE, but farmers still had over 3,000 non-GE varieties to pick from. By 2010, GE options had slightly expanded, but non-GE options plummeted by two thirds. Similar reductions in varieties sold were seen in soybeans and cotton, too. By 2010, only 17 percent of corn varieties, 10 percent of soybean varieties, and 15 percent of cotton varieties available in seed catalogues were non-GE.
But these numbers make the U.S. seed supply look more biodiverse than it actually is.
Within all of those thousands of corn varieties sold, one single variety, Reed Yellow Dent, makes up 47 percent of the gene pool used to create hybrid varieties. All in all, corn germplasm comes from just seven founding inbred lines. More than a third come from one of those seven, a line called B73.
With farmers in nearly every state planting such genetically similar corn, farmers experience booms and busts together. Farmers in Mexico, the birthplace of corn, plant a fantastic variety of corn. The plants differ in color, height, ear size, drought tolerance, maturity time, and more. If bad weather shows up late in the season, the early maturing varieties still provided a harvest. If it’s dry, the drought tolerant varieties survive. If a new disease shows up, some of the corn is bound to have some resistance to it whereas other varieties will be more susceptible to it. Biodiversity acts almost like an insurance system.
Planting genetically identical crops results in the opposite. It’s like betting all of your money on one lottery number. And when U.S. corn farmers lose the lottery, they all lose together so the national yield plummets.
Second, Heinemann adds, “Another possibility is that it’s not genetic engineering per se but it’s the innovation policy through which genetic engineering is successful that is causing the U.S. agroecosystem to invest in the wrong things. So the innovation strategy gives signals to the industry to produce things that can be controlled by strict property rights instruments, but these things are not contributing to sustainable agriculture. The problem is that the biotechnologies that the US is invested in are limiting the sustainability and productivity of the agroecosystem.” (Heinemann means “biotechnologies” in a very broad sense, as in any technology humans use in agriculture, even something as simple as using mulch or composting.)
“Western Europe has gone for a different kind of innovation strategy,” he continues. “Because Europe has had to innovate without using genetic engineering,” due to its laws that do not allow GE crops, “it does so in a way that rewards the plants. They’re getting greater yield and using less pesticide to do it. But the way the US is innovating, it’s penalizing all plants whether they are genetically engineered or not.”
Yep, that’s right. In addition to increasing crop yields faster, European nations have also reduced pesticides more than we have."
On the "GE yields more crops front"...we know this to be false. Multiple studies, both peer and industry, have concluded as much. Interesting article references it very plainly:
Jack Heinemann, genetic engineer and author of a study found here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UhPCCXrn_IV)
Original Article where below excerpt is taken is found here: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/study_monsanto_gmo_food_claims_probably_false_partner/
"Heinemann decided to look at the productivity and sustainability of the U.S. agricultural system. And when examining sustainability, he means it in a very literal sense: can this system be sustained over time? Is U.S. agriculture resilient or is it highly susceptible to variations in weather, pests or other stressors?
Instead of examining North America alone, he chose to measure it against Western Europe. Therefore, he is able to measure not just whether North American agriculture improved over time, but whether or not it improved more or less than a similar region. Agriculture on both sides of the Atlantic is fairly similar, with the major exception the adoption of GE crops.
Both the U.S. and Canada were early adopters, whereas Western Europe did not adopt GE crops. The study compared crops that are common to both regions: corn and wheat in the U.S. and Western Europe, and canola in Canada and Western Europe. Almost all of the corn and canola grown in North America is genetically modified, whereas no GE wheat is grown in either region studied. Therefore, the study could isolate whether any increases in yields were thanks to genetic engineering or simply due to conventional crop breeding.
Even in genetically engineered plants, most of the genes in the plant come from conventional breeding. Think about the new sheep genetically engineered by scientists in Uruguay to – no joke – glow in the dark. Its DNA contains genes that tell its cells to make wool, hooves, four legs, a head, and everything else that makes it a sheep. Only a few genes – the ones that make the sheep glow in the dark – were inserted via genetic engineering. If the sheep happens to have the best wool for making sweaters or it produces the best milk for making cheese, that’s due to conventional breeding and not genetic engineering.
The same is true for crops. One or more genetically engineered traits can be added to any variety of corn, soybeans, or canola. Most of those crops’ traits come from conventional breeding. If a GE crop does particularly well or particularly poorly, the success or failure could be due to the genes inserted via genetic engineering… or it could be due to all of its other conventionally bred genes.
Heinemann’s group found that between 1985 and 2010, Western Europe has experienced yield gains at a faster rate than North America for all three crops measured. That means that the U.S., which grows mostly GE corn, and Canada, which grows mostly GE canola, are not doing as well as Europe, which grows non-GE corn and canola. The increases in corn yields in the U.S. have remained relatively consistent both before and after the introduction of GE corn. Furthermore, Western Europe is experiencing faster yield gains than America for non-GE wheat.
What does this mean? “There’s no evidence that [GE crops] have given us higher yields,” says Heinemann. “The evidence points exclusively to breeding as the input that has increased yields over time. And there is evidence that it is constraining yields in the North American agroecosystem.” He offers two potential reasons why. First, he says, “By making the germplasm so much narrower, the average yield goes down because the low yields are so low.”
In other words, the lack of biodiversity among major crops today results in bigger losses during bad years.
Companies that make GE crops benefit from a relatively new law, passed in 1994, allowing for much stricter intellectual property rights on seeds. Previously, a company had the rights to sell its seed. A farmer could buy that seed and cross it with other seeds to produce locally adapted varieties. He or she could then save and replant those varieties. Now, the company can patent the genes inside the plant. It doesn’t matter if a farmer breeds Monsanto’s corn with a local variety and produces a brand new type of corn. If the resulting seeds have Monsanto’s patented gene in them, then Monsanto owns them. The farmer cannot save his own seeds.
This means that seed companies now control the amount of biodiversity available to farmers. And the number of varieties they sell has been going down. For example, the study found that in 2005, farmers could choose from nearly 9,000 different varieties of corn. The majority (57 percent) were GE, but farmers still had over 3,000 non-GE varieties to pick from. By 2010, GE options had slightly expanded, but non-GE options plummeted by two thirds. Similar reductions in varieties sold were seen in soybeans and cotton, too. By 2010, only 17 percent of corn varieties, 10 percent of soybean varieties, and 15 percent of cotton varieties available in seed catalogues were non-GE.
But these numbers make the U.S. seed supply look more biodiverse than it actually is.
Within all of those thousands of corn varieties sold, one single variety, Reed Yellow Dent, makes up 47 percent of the gene pool used to create hybrid varieties. All in all, corn germplasm comes from just seven founding inbred lines. More than a third come from one of those seven, a line called B73.
With farmers in nearly every state planting such genetically similar corn, farmers experience booms and busts together. Farmers in Mexico, the birthplace of corn, plant a fantastic variety of corn. The plants differ in color, height, ear size, drought tolerance, maturity time, and more. If bad weather shows up late in the season, the early maturing varieties still provided a harvest. If it’s dry, the drought tolerant varieties survive. If a new disease shows up, some of the corn is bound to have some resistance to it whereas other varieties will be more susceptible to it. Biodiversity acts almost like an insurance system.
Planting genetically identical crops results in the opposite. It’s like betting all of your money on one lottery number. And when U.S. corn farmers lose the lottery, they all lose together so the national yield plummets.
Second, Heinemann adds, “Another possibility is that it’s not genetic engineering per se but it’s the innovation policy through which genetic engineering is successful that is causing the U.S. agroecosystem to invest in the wrong things. So the innovation strategy gives signals to the industry to produce things that can be controlled by strict property rights instruments, but these things are not contributing to sustainable agriculture. The problem is that the biotechnologies that the US is invested in are limiting the sustainability and productivity of the agroecosystem.” (Heinemann means “biotechnologies” in a very broad sense, as in any technology humans use in agriculture, even something as simple as using mulch or composting.)
“Western Europe has gone for a different kind of innovation strategy,” he continues. “Because Europe has had to innovate without using genetic engineering,” due to its laws that do not allow GE crops, “it does so in a way that rewards the plants. They’re getting greater yield and using less pesticide to do it. But the way the US is innovating, it’s penalizing all plants whether they are genetically engineered or not.”
Yep, that’s right. In addition to increasing crop yields faster, European nations have also reduced pesticides more than we have."
Monday, August 19, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Five Natural Supplements to Detox Your Body of Toxic GMO
1) Psyllium husk. Known for its incredible colon-cleansing effects, psyllium husk is a favorite when it comes to cleansing protocols that involve flushing the intestines and restoring healthy digestive function. Since GMOs have been shown to directly alter the bacterial balance within the gut, psyllium husk is a powerful remedy to help rid the gut of these transgenic invaders, which will in turn allow beneficial bacteria to regain their rightful place as regulators of the digestive system.
Individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), constipation, diarrhea, ulcerative colitis, indigestion, and other persistent digestive disorders typically experience dramatic relief by supplementing with psyllium husk. When ingested along with copious amounts of water, psyllium husk expands into a gelatin-like mass that basically scrubs the intestines clean of toxic buildup. This same colonic action can also help rid the digestive system of accumulated transgenic materials as well. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
2) Organic sulfur/MSM. When it comes to ensuring that the liver is operating at its full detoxification capacity, there is perhaps no nutrient more powerful than organic sulfur, which is also known as methylsulfonylmethane (MSM). A critical component in detoxification, energy production, cell oxygenation, and immune capacity, organic sulfur has gained "near miracle" status among many health professionals who now recognize how a lack of this vital nutrient can encourage toxic buildup within the body. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026797_sulfur_organic.html)
Organic sulfur used to be present throughout the food supply before the days of GMOs, petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and other "modern" agricultural interventions -- but today, it is severely lacking throughout the food supply. Supplementing with organic, lignan-based sulfur crystals will help repair your malfunctioning cells, restore healthy oxygen transport, and ultimately facilitate a systemic detoxification process that will encourage the elimination of GMO remnants from your system.
3) Probiotics. Since GMOs tend to alter bacterial balance within the gut, supplementing with probiotics and probiotic-rich foods -- these include things like raw sauerkraut, kefir, kombucha tea, authentic miso soup, fermented vegetables, yogurt, and blue-green micro-algae -- is absolutely vital for protecting your body against the harmful effects of GMO exposure. In conjunction with the other cleansing protocols mentioned here, supplementing with high-quality probiotics will help ensure that your digestive tract remains free of toxins. (http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/probiotic-foods/)
4) Cascara sagrada/sacred bark. One of the most powerful known colon-cleansing herbs, cascara sagrada, which also goes by the names of sacred bark, California buckthorn, and rhamnus purshiana, has long been used by ancient cultures to cleanse the bowel and eliminate toxins. Cascara sagrada is rich in a compound known as anthraquinone that instigates the contraction of intestinal walls, which in turn promotes healthy bowel activity. (http://www.colonhealthmagazine.com)
Cascara sagrada also contains compounds that promote the strengthening of the muscles in the intestinal lining, which are necessary for healthy and regular elimination of waste and toxins. This, combined with its laxative effect, makes cascara sagrada one of the most effective colon cleansing herbs known to man, and one that will help keep your system protected against GMO damage.
5) Wild burdock root. A powerful blood-cleansing agent, wild burdock root is relatively easy to obtain, and simple to take. An aggressive diuretic, wild burdock root is strong enough to rid the body of even hard-to-reach toxins, including GMOs residues and associated pesticide and herbicide chemicals. Burdock root also helps cleanse parasites, heavy metals, bacteria, and other toxins from the blood, and is often used to treat chronic bacterial and viral infections such as Lyme disease. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027521_burdock_root_blood.html)
Especially when used in conjunction with other powerful cleansing herbs such as dandelion root, red clover blossom, aloe vera, cayenne, and garlic clove, burdock root is powerful enough to cleanse not only your blood supply, but also your liver, your skin, and your digestive tract of many harmful toxins, including GMOs.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
If You Have NOT Seen This, You Are Painfully Uninformed! (Genetic Modification - GMO) - Watch "Seeds Of Death" here.
Seeds Of Death - Full Movie, Watch Now: Free.
Do You Trust Your News Sources? Still Think Monsanto Is "for world improvement"? Wake Up.
When the American people wake up, maybe this nation will improve. I will be SHOCKED when that actually happens. Monsanto IS evil.
NT Times article published in 2002 - (PCB Pollution Suits Have Day in Court in Alabama)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/national/27TOXI.html
"Mr. Stroud's garden is laced with high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB's, presumably from the plant three blocks away where the Monsanto Company produced the suspected carcinogen for nearly four decades.
During those years, St. Louis-based Monsanto flushed tens of thousands of pounds of PCB's and other toxic wastes into Snow Creek each year, sending the chemicals meandering through long-established neighborhoods and into Choccolocco Creek.
More than 45 tons of PCB's, a highly efficient industrial insulator, were discharged in 1969 alone, according to company documents.Monsanto also deposited millions of pounds of PCB's in a hillside landfill just above the plant."
And for a little added education - on the dangers of Milk:
(This source has way more truth than ANY mainstream media source. Ever.)
Friday, August 16, 2013
Why am I so passionate about labeling GMOs? Why, when I don't have "scientific" proof that its "bad"?
It's a killer. That's why. Silently, and deadly, over time it spreads in our bodies and destroys us from within...
GMOs were first introduced in the 90s - and while that is quite awhile ago, it is still not ideal for long-term studies. Why? Because no long-term studies have been done from the moment they were introduced. No one thought to actually see if these are going to be dangerous in the long-term when they introduced them into the food supply. Huh, well that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy towards GMO now doesn't it?
There have been many studies done on GMO effects over time, but the studies and research material that show negative effects resulting from GMO done by those companies who produce them is "confidential" or wildly lacking in any real information. And others who do those same studies and get those same results are pressured by media, lawsuits and the like here in the states.
There have been many studies done on GMO effects over time, but the studies and research material that show negative effects resulting from GMO done by those companies who produce them is "confidential" or wildly lacking in any real information. And others who do those same studies and get those same results are pressured by media, lawsuits and the like here in the states.
Many of the international studies done support our concerns for anti-GMO, and this is likely why over 60 other countries have either banned or require labeling of GMOs.
Scientists who have flipped to the anti-GMO side and have worked in that industry have stated that they know for a fact that the GMOs have tested negatively and can impact health over time, and in some cases a short amount of time for people who were more sensitive to them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have zero desire to consume corn that has been bred with pesticide IN IT. Yes, BT corn - when ingested by insects - makes their stomachs bloat up and explode. It comes from the pesticide in the corn, not on it...IN IT. That is no joke, people. And this corn is sold for our consumption as well. Just head to WalMart for your corn if you want a little of that action.
Scientists who have flipped to the anti-GMO side and have worked in that industry have stated that they know for a fact that the GMOs have tested negatively and can impact health over time, and in some cases a short amount of time for people who were more sensitive to them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have zero desire to consume corn that has been bred with pesticide IN IT. Yes, BT corn - when ingested by insects - makes their stomachs bloat up and explode. It comes from the pesticide in the corn, not on it...IN IT. That is no joke, people. And this corn is sold for our consumption as well. Just head to WalMart for your corn if you want a little of that action.
So many people want fact: I too want definitive proof, but its unrealistic because there have been so many instances where lab results, studies and detailed documents have literally "disappeared" in the course of research - or worse yet, been "edited" and/or "modified" to highlight more "desirable results".
Huh, I wonder why that is...
Worse yet, some research over the years got the kibosh put on it - in Monsanto's own backyard. So what happened to it? Destroyed. All data purged.
Why? It likely yielded results that they were not happy with, that did not support their claims. A few former employees have stated just that fact.
Surprised? Thought they were working ..."for the benefit of the world?"...If you are and did, then you are sadly naïve.
And in their place? Detailed glowing reports of the benefits and great results from "these studies, just pay attention to these studies showing the wonderful results from our GMO products!"
Dig deep enough, and you will find even the most innocent of studies and research panels are backed by Monsanto, Dow, etc...you just have to keep digging and you will find the link - after you have broken through the smokescreen of "the so-and-so Foundation", or "Center for Whatever", I could go on with the unlimited amount of "fronts" these companies use to hide that they are the ones actually paying for the studies and research, that they are the ones paying for the scathing ads at election time against labeling reform for GMO - in addition to the ones that they proudly put their name on also. They figure if they use bogus foundations and feel-good names and add that to their "transparent" ads, that voters will see that "more than just the evil Monsanto thinks this isn't a good idea..." Yeah, those of us who know better should be running to those polls to vote YES on any labeling initiative.
Hell, we even have former Monsanto higher-ups who are now members in government, sit on the bench as a Supreme Court justice, and even head of the FDA! (link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/21/former-monsanto-exec-appointed-to-the-head-of-the-f-d-a/ )
Again, In this day and age it's almost impossible to find definitive proof on anything. Too many biased hands in the pot. Almost 100% of studies are never 100% accurate - or even 75%... on ANY side. They are frequently conducted with enough error and bias to skew much of the results in the solicitor's (those who pay to have it done) favor - in some cases not even on purpose. This is why they are rarely reliable - unless they can be repeated multiple times, with different people conducting them AND still have the same results each time.
In the end - for me, correlative proof is adequate enough to tell me that this is not safe for any of us. Raw experience and experimentation is a fantastic way to really see the results. I've done it myself, as have many others - a few I reference further along in this post.
I recommend: Ditch everything that is NOT organic. Ditch all processed and refined foods - even organic ones. And above all, eliminate meat and dairy from the diet. Eat only fresh, organic fruits and veggies and stick to organic beans and spices. Prepare your OWN food.
Yeah, there will be no eating out in restaurants. Get over it. Yeah, there's no more ice cream runs to the store, or grabbing a pizza on the way home from work. It sucks, move on. Get over it.
If you have not prepared it yourself or do not know what goes into it - it is not edible.
Huh, I wonder why that is...
Worse yet, some research over the years got the kibosh put on it - in Monsanto's own backyard. So what happened to it? Destroyed. All data purged.
Why? It likely yielded results that they were not happy with, that did not support their claims. A few former employees have stated just that fact.
Surprised? Thought they were working ..."for the benefit of the world?"...If you are and did, then you are sadly naïve.
And in their place? Detailed glowing reports of the benefits and great results from "these studies, just pay attention to these studies showing the wonderful results from our GMO products!"
Dig deep enough, and you will find even the most innocent of studies and research panels are backed by Monsanto, Dow, etc...you just have to keep digging and you will find the link - after you have broken through the smokescreen of "the so-and-so Foundation", or "Center for Whatever", I could go on with the unlimited amount of "fronts" these companies use to hide that they are the ones actually paying for the studies and research, that they are the ones paying for the scathing ads at election time against labeling reform for GMO - in addition to the ones that they proudly put their name on also. They figure if they use bogus foundations and feel-good names and add that to their "transparent" ads, that voters will see that "more than just the evil Monsanto thinks this isn't a good idea..." Yeah, those of us who know better should be running to those polls to vote YES on any labeling initiative.
Hell, we even have former Monsanto higher-ups who are now members in government, sit on the bench as a Supreme Court justice, and even head of the FDA! (link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/21/former-monsanto-exec-appointed-to-the-head-of-the-f-d-a/ )
Again, In this day and age it's almost impossible to find definitive proof on anything. Too many biased hands in the pot. Almost 100% of studies are never 100% accurate - or even 75%... on ANY side. They are frequently conducted with enough error and bias to skew much of the results in the solicitor's (those who pay to have it done) favor - in some cases not even on purpose. This is why they are rarely reliable - unless they can be repeated multiple times, with different people conducting them AND still have the same results each time.
In the end - for me, correlative proof is adequate enough to tell me that this is not safe for any of us. Raw experience and experimentation is a fantastic way to really see the results. I've done it myself, as have many others - a few I reference further along in this post.
I recommend: Ditch everything that is NOT organic. Ditch all processed and refined foods - even organic ones. And above all, eliminate meat and dairy from the diet. Eat only fresh, organic fruits and veggies and stick to organic beans and spices. Prepare your OWN food.
Yeah, there will be no eating out in restaurants. Get over it. Yeah, there's no more ice cream runs to the store, or grabbing a pizza on the way home from work. It sucks, move on. Get over it.
If you have not prepared it yourself or do not know what goes into it - it is not edible.
I am working on a piece for publication (hopefully!) - and have boxes and boxes of documents and statements from people who have changed their lives by omitting GMO ingredients from their diets, cutting out a majority or all processed foods (even those that are vegan and organic), and going strictly organic, non-GMO plant-based for a dietary lifestyle change ... and some also cutting out all animal proteins permanently.
Every one of them saw significant improvement in their health. I also have three different case studies that show three different people with various forms of cancer - two of them: their cancer went into complete remission in a year's time - no chemo, no radiation - just diet and lifestyle change by changing to an organic, GMO-free diet heavy on veggies and fruits - no oils, no saturated fats, no wheat, no soy, and no meat or dairy....
And the third person? That person's tumor dramatically decreased in a matter of 7 months by doing the same. ALL of their doctors and specialists are ecstatic. And we are still monitoring them with phone calls and follow-ups after appointments.
GMO IS a huge factor in the health of this country, going hand in hand with the unreal amount of hormone-infested meats and dairy products... and fatty, heavily processed foods that add to that sickening "American diet".
If you do nothing else to change your life: do ONE thing and you will see improvement - Go ORGANIC. At least that way you are eliminating much of the GMO infestation out there.
And something else you can do? SUPPORT I-522: The labeling initiative in Washington State! Spread the word on this, whether you live in WA or not! Monsanto, Dow, The Grocer's Association, and more are lobbing MILLIONS to defeat this in the November election...and why? Because they know what will happen if this passes. This will help change occur for ALL states who see that WA state residents refuse to have the wool pulled down over their eyes any longer - and will NOT be poisoned. http://yeson522.com/
And something else you can do? SUPPORT I-522: The labeling initiative in Washington State! Spread the word on this, whether you live in WA or not! Monsanto, Dow, The Grocer's Association, and more are lobbing MILLIONS to defeat this in the November election...and why? Because they know what will happen if this passes. This will help change occur for ALL states who see that WA state residents refuse to have the wool pulled down over their eyes any longer - and will NOT be poisoned. http://yeson522.com/
Organic Dairy Farmer PROVES Animals Know Difference Between Organic and GMOs
Organic Dairy Farmer, Paul Fonder, was curious to see what kind of corn squirrels would favor.
Last fall, Fonder conducted an experiment in his South Dakota backyard. He built a squirrel feeder and put genetically modified corn fresh from a neighbor’s field on... one post and one-year-old organic corn on the other.
“You would expect squirrels to prefer fresh corn over corn that’s a year old,” said Fonder. But that’s not what happened.
Here's a simple picture that tells the story of corn cobs eaten by squirrels.
Fonder repeated the experiment five times, using different varieties of organic and GM corn. Each time, he got the same results.
Do you think that it’s possible the squirrels might be on to something here?
If you want to see GMOs labeled in the United States, like they are in the picture, then here’s some good news. Labeling efforts are underway in 26 states, and in November voters in the state of Washington will have the opportunity to make their state the first in the nation to mandate labeling without condition.
Public interest lawyer and Food Revolution Summit speaker Michele Simon has written a new post with an update on important developments in Washington’s Initiative 522..
http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/washington-gmos/
“You would expect squirrels to prefer fresh corn over corn that’s a year old,” said Fonder. But that’s not what happened.
Here's a simple picture that tells the story of corn cobs eaten by squirrels.
Fonder repeated the experiment five times, using different varieties of organic and GM corn. Each time, he got the same results.
Do you think that it’s possible the squirrels might be on to something here?
If you want to see GMOs labeled in the United States, like they are in the picture, then here’s some good news. Labeling efforts are underway in 26 states, and in November voters in the state of Washington will have the opportunity to make their state the first in the nation to mandate labeling without condition.
Public interest lawyer and Food Revolution Summit speaker Michele Simon has written a new post with an update on important developments in Washington’s Initiative 522..
http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/washington-gmos/
Want MORE proof??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)