France bans pesticides in public green spaces

Starting in February, all #GMO foods will labeled in South Korea

Top 10 Non-GMO Wins of 2016

We made monumental strides towards a non-GMO future this year, and it’s something to celebrate. Here are the top 10 non-GMO wins we’re celebrating from 2016:

Seed company narrows focus to non-GMO

“For a decade, the fastest-growing part of Viking and Albert Lea Seed has been conventional non-GMO and organic seed,” Ehrhardt said.

“We support all streams of agriculture, but we don’t have the resources to develop traited seed and compete with Syngenta, Monsanto and Dow/DuPont. We do have the passion to develop and deliver the best conventional non-GMO hybrids, varieties and innovation to those farmers that need them.”

GM studies 'biased' by company links

"Of this total, 404 were American studies and 83 were Chinese," he said. "The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favourable conclusion for GMO crops. We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many," noted Mr Guillemaud.

Top Costco Executives Plan Major Expansion of Organic Fast Food Restaurant Chain

State taking right approach toward pesticides

Recently, the news on Kauai and Oahu was heavily oriented toward pesticide information. Two prominent stories included:

New Killer Tomato

Someone is not thinking this through. A new tomato has been developed which kills the tomato fruit borer caterpillar that eats it. While this may seem like beneficial progress for farmers, this is completely absurd for human consumption.

A plant which kills life is not something that any parent wants to feed their child. A plant which has a caterpillar die within 24 hours is called poison, not food for our families.

The Bizarre History of How Corporate Food Industry Flooded Our Farmlands with GMOs - It's one elaborate con job.

It all started with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed certain life forms to be considered private property in 1980, when the high court ruled in a 5–4 decision that scientist Ananda Chakrabarty could own the intellectual property rights to a genetically engineered oil-eating bacterium after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initially denied the claim on the grounds that living things “are not patentable subject matter.” The court contended that genetically engineered organisms were “manufactured” and therefore covered by patent law.

While the first biotech application to pass muster with the FDA came in 1982 in the form of a synthetic form of insulin produced by genetically modified bacteria, it would take another decade for the FDA to put its stamp of approval on the marketing of GMOs for food use.

The FDA official who was most responsible for that was Michael Taylor, a former attorney for the Monsanto Corp. of St. Louis. Taylor’s arrival on the scene was the result of a politico-economic policy, one that also began during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

The first indication of this was the development of “a Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology to provide for the regulatory oversight of organisms derived through genetic engineering” by the federal government in 1986. The following year, according to the HuffPost Green, “then-Vice President George H. W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops…. When Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, ‘Call me. We’re in the dereg business. Maybe we can help.’”

Help he did, when five years later, as Reagan’s successor, he assigned his own veep, Dan Quayle, to get a “regulatory relief initiative” for GMO crops underway. At a press conference, Quayle, who headed what was known as the “Competitiveness Council,” touted biotech’s potential profitability “as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations.” One way to do that was for the administration to appoint Taylor, who proceeded to have genetically engineered crops declared “the substantial equivalent” of conventional ones, therefore requiring neither safety testing or special labeling—a regulatory paradox, given that the same GMOs were considered to be substantially different enough to merit an actual patent.

All this was accomplished with very little general awareness of what was occurring at the time—as well as of its implications for food production. It did, however, arouse the attention of Steven M. Druker, a public interest attorney who ended up initiating legal action to have this FDA policy reversed. While that litigation ultimately was deflected, it did give Druker access to the innermost details of what had taken place in the form of 44,000 pages of documents, which he came to regard as “extensive evidence of an enormous, ongoing fraud,” one involving evasion of both laws and scientific standards that, as he recounted in his 2015 book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truths, had subjected the American people to “novel foods that were abnormally risky in the eyes of the agency’s own scientists.”

Druker also relied on sources with an inside knowledge of how GMOs came to be accepted with no safety testing, a major one being the biologist Philip Regal, who revealed to him how the interests of investors in the success of the new technology resulted in customary scientific caution being thrown to the winds. Contrary to initial assurances he had received, Regal told him, the attitude he heard expressed at a 1988 conference on the subject by both industry and government officials was, “if the American people want progress, they are going to have to be the guinea pigs.”

Testing Reveals No Glyphosate Found in Wines from Two CA Organic Vineyards

Feds challenge state on GM crops decree

Federal government claims Yucatán overstepped its authority.

Editorial - Escalating the weed wars

But first, the Environmental Protection Agency would have to approve the special blending of the two herbicides developed by Dow. Called Enlist Duo, the mix has been formulated not to drift over large areas as 2,4-D commonly does. It would thus reduce the risk of killing crops miles away. According to USDA estimates, the introduction of the new crops would mean the spraying of five to 13 times as much 2,4-D by the year 2020.

Meanwhile, Monsanto, the developer of Roundup Ready corn, is developing its own new generation of herbicide-resistant crops able to withstand a third weed killer.

National Biotechnology Panel Faces New Conflict of Interest Questions

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are assigned by Congress to provide policy guidance to the government. The group describes itself as “advisers to the nation.” The advice often comes through written reports from scientific committees organized by the group.

One of those committees, though, is facing questions about how its members were selected. The concerns focus on a panel studying biotechnology, a booming area of business, including in the food industry, and one of the most contentious scientific issues in Washington.

Critics say that several committee members have financial ties to biotech businesses that could color the panel’s report, expected to be published soon, potentially giving short shrift to health and environmental worries.

By the academies’ own account, two of the scientists already violate the group’s extensive conflict-of-interest policy.

Argentinian Federal Prosecutor requests ban on GMO crops over glyphosate fears

US: National Academy of Sciences biotech panel faces conflict of interest questions

Agroecology booming in Argentina

New breeding techniques: New GMOs in a legal limbo

German GMO-free industry body says gene-edited foods are GMOs

Doctor Presents Damning Evidence: The Autism Epidemic Can No Longer Be Ignored! by Christian Bogner, MD

Glyphosate and Autism - Is glyphosate to blame for autism?

The result of this glyphosate injection via CDC scheduled vaccines is activation of neurons and inflammation. Not only are the toxins not being cleared, but glyphosate by itself causes neuronal activation along with glutamate. They both act as neurotransmitters. Glyphosate is a glycine mimetic, meaning it can act like a neurotransmitter by itself. High amounts of glutamate can hence activate brain cells.

Scientists Loved and Loathed by an Agrochemical Giant With corporate funding of research, “there’s no scientist who comes out of this unscathed.”

A review of Syngenta’s strategy shows that Dr. Cresswell’s experience fits in with practices used by American competitors like Monsanto and across the agrochemical industry. Scientists deliver outcomes favorable to companies, while university research departments court corporate support. Universities and regulators sacrifice full autonomy by signing confidentiality agreements. And academics sometimes double as paid consultants.

Tanzanian farmers are facing heavy prison sentences if they continue their traditional seed exchange

Despite Pledges To Cut Back, Farms Are Still Using Antibiotics

According to the latest figures, released this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, antibiotic sales for use on farm animals increased by 1 percent in 2015, compared to the previous year. The increase was slightly greater – 2 percent — for antibiotics used as human medicine.


If you’re a “foodie in training” these are the films to watch.

The History of How Organic Farming was Lost

CAFO Meat Is Even More Dangerous

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota

The dirty secret about your clothes

My Favorite Moments From 2016 – See Which Food Companies Are Dropping The Toxins!

Seneff: “It will be interesting to see who Trump appoints to head the CDC after Frieden, although this article is interesting at another level because it defends pain medications and criticizes Frieden for trying to curb the writing of prescriptions for opioid pain drugs. It points out that deaths due to opioids continued to rise even despite Frieden's efforts, and it claims that many people are in utter agony and must have their prescription pain killers or they may commit suicide. Nowhere is there any mention of an explanation for why so many people are in agony these days. I think the explanation is straightforward: glyphosate gets into the joints and bones and causes dysfunctional collagen, leading to injury and inflammation. Switching to a strict organic diet would be a much better solution than taking an opioid drug!”

4 children dead in Texas in pesticide spraying incident

Forty years later, FDA finally restricts use of antibiotics in livestock

Organic farmers, consumers and businesses receive best Christmas gift ever

The study, entitled ‘Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture', was carried out by the European Parliament's independent Research Service and draws together existing scientific research into the differences between organic and non-organic food and farming. It is an overwhelming win for organic farming, finding that organic farming practices can help develop healthy food systems which are beneficial for public health.

To date, there have been very few studies exploring the benefits of organic food and farming on human health. While the authors agree that more research, in particular more long-term studies, are required to fully understand the evidence, the report states that early studies have found a number of benefits of organic food, including:

More consumers ignoring marketing, looking at food ingredients

But Nielsen also created a separate category with its own, narrower criteria. For that category, market researchers took a closer look at ingredients, store placement (is it in the “Natural” aisle?), and the rest of the brand. Anything USDA-certified organic, for example, was in; anything with genetically modified organisms or artificial or synthetic ingredients was out. The growth in that narrower category was nearly triple the growth in the broader one, at 11.2 percent.

My comment to the FDA regarding their "redefining healthy" by nutritional content only.

"Healthy" food must not only be determined by nutritional content. That is an incomplete, inaccurate and irresponsible way to determine "healthy". We Moms Across America can see through this tactic and we are NOT BUYING IT!

We determine healthy to mean 100% natural, from nature, not a lab- NO GMOs, NO man made synthetic, harmful chemicals, and NO artificial dyes, preservatives or additives which have ever shown to cause short or long term harm.

By only using nutritional content to define "healthy", the FDA means to legally allow GMOs and harmful chemicals in "healthy food". This would support food companies who are being sued for "unhealthy" food which is labeled "healthy" from being liable.

It must be clarified that when the industry says a chemical is "not toxic" and therefore does not need to be tested or labeled and can be allowed in "healthy" food, they are using a loop hope in the testing process. "Toxic" according to industry means that it kills an animal in 4 days. We mothers are not feeding our child a food for only 4 days. We feed our children for the long term, and a small amount of a "non toxic" chemical can cause great "harm" over many years. "Harmful", meaning short or long term harm, is completely disregarded as a term in the food industry, and therefore harmful chemicals are allowed, even in "healthy" food. This is immoral.

We deserve to have food which does not have toxic or harmful chemicals for our children. We demand life long, long term testing showing blood analysis, full disclosure and final formulation testing of chemical products sprayed on our food ( not just the one "declared active chemical ingredient". We know that the current system is set up to allow food companies to add chemicals to our food, our to allow chemical residues from GMO and chemical farming, and to not be responsible for the impact on consumers.

The public should know that the FDA has falsely classified GMOs and pesticides/herbicides/fungicides under a PROCESS not as ADDITIVES so that the food companies do not have to label and safety test. We mothers know that "additives" are required to be labeled and safety tested. The food companies want to avoid testing and labeling, and the FDA allows them this lack of accountability. This does not create healthy food, this only creates wealth for the food companies.

It is unethical and irresponsible that the chemicals that the EPA and FDA allowed to be sprayed on our food and feed crops have never been proven safe to the EPA in their final formulation state. This is misleading to the American public. The FDA is responsible for ensuring that our food is safe, healthy and nutritious, not for protecting the profits of the chemical companies. We ask the FDA to have integrity and responsibility and to classify "healthy " as grown or raised naturally (in nature) not in a lab, fed or being Non GMO, Pesticide (including herbicides/fungicides) Free, low in sugar, sodium, no transfats, no MSG, no carrageenan, and free of other harmful additives/preservatives/dyes.
Thank you,
Zen Honeycutt
Executive Director, Moms Across America

Comment here:

FDA Means to Let Food Companies Off the Hook AGAIN

This means by only classifying "healthy" under NUTRITIONAL content, they avoid GMO and pesticides, continuing to allow them in "healthy" food.

FDA To Redefine 'Healthy' Claim for Food Labeling
Arty turns 11 this summer.