Energy CEO Says Fracking Build-out in New York Not Over, Wants Regulators to 'Lay Down and Approve Every Pipeline'

“We're not giving up,” Phillips said at Marcellus Midstream 2018. “I had a chance when I sold my salt business in New York in December, I sold that for $225 million. I had a chance to walk away from the propane storage project and the permit. I didn't do it. I kept the permit. I'm gonna keep it for years. And we're gonna keep just plodding along. And eventually we think economics will dictate a changing approach by the regulators or the governor in New York.”

Seneff: “Zen Honeycutt has written a powerful commentary on the ridiculous power of a judge to render ineffective a California law that should help citizens stay informed about the dangers of glyphosate.”

Judge Says Public Doesn’t Need Cancer Warning Label

February 27, 2018-- Today a CA Federal Judge ruled that the public does not need a warning label to inform us that cancer-causing and harmful chemicals in glyphosate herbicides are in our food or products, temporarily relieving manufacturers from the responsibility of being honest with their customers. At a time when more and more American families are struggling with diseases and their high cost, one man decided that it was an injustice to the chemical companies to have to tell us about the presence of their chemicals.

Senior United States District Judge William B. Shubb released his ruling regarding the case of Wheat Growers and Monsanto against the California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the CA Attorney General to remove glyphosate, the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, from the CA Prop 65 carcinogen list, a law approved by California voters by ballot initiative in 1986.

The Judge ruled that OEHHA can keep glyphosate on the Prop 65 carcinogen list but the manufacturers such as Monsanto and food producers will not have to label their products with a warning label. Normally, the law states that products containing chemicals on the list, above a certain level, must label their products within a year from the listing. The label would state, “WARNING this product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” The temporary preliminary injunction granted by the judge halts the impending labeling by manufacturers of products and foods containing glyphosate and allows them to not inform their customers of this fact... that glyphosate has been found to cause cancer in animals and to be a probable human carcinogen.

The result is that OEHHA acknowledges glyphosate-containing products can cause cancer, but can not require the manufacturers of such products to warn consumers because it could negatively affect corporate profits.

This one Judge, one man, who could not even pronounce “glyphosate” at the beginning of the hour long hearing, has just changed the law and effectively hidden the known cancer-causing effects of glyphosate from not only Californians, but from an entire nation looking to California to lead the way in health regulations.

One must ask....why doesn’t this Judge want you to know what you are eating? Why wouldn’t he think it wise to inform the public that cancer causing chemicals are in our food? Is it not a matter of public interest that the chemicals in this herbicide, itself an antibiotic by patent, has been proven to be neurotoxic, genotoxic, endocrine disruptors, which can lead to mental illness and increasing depression and acts of violence, are in our children’s peanut butter sandwich? Why aren’t couples with infertility being told that the wheat snacks they are eating are likely keeping them from getting pregnant? Why aren’t parents allowed to know that the non organic orange juice and oatmeal they are giving their baby or the hummus that they eat for lunch contains high levels of glyphosate herbicide which has been proven at ultra low levels to cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease?

The answer appears to be that the Judge did not consider the evidence before him. He stated that “on the evidence before the court the required warning for glyphosate does not prove to be accurate and uncontroversial” citing that “almost all other agencies have proven that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.” This is simply untrue. Health and regulatory agencies of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, El Salvador, England, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland and six Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman have issued outright bans on glyphosate, imposed restrictions or have issued statements of intention to ban or restrict glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, over health concerns and the ongoing Roundup cancer litigation.

Moms Across America and the National Health Federation with Tipps & Associates, filed an Amicus brief, filled with evidence which does not appear to have been considered.

The Feb 26, 2018 OEHHA Prop 65 ruling clearly panders to the chemical company, Monsanto, who argued that the listing and labeling of their products would lead to “irreparable harm” because public and private “enforcers” would sue, causing them to lose vast amounts of resources and loss of sales. What about the irreparable harm to Mary, California mother of two, whose father and son were both exposed to Roundup during backyard garden use, and both contracted non-Hodgkin Lymphoma? What about the irreparable harm to the mothers who spoke up at the Monsanto Tribunal whose sons were undergoing more than 60 surgeries for birth defects which were linked to exposure to glyphosate herbicide during their pregnancy? What about the irreparable harm to our nation due to the health issues and skyrocketing health care costs which have been connected to glyphosate herbicides?

Did the Judge consider the evidence of the collusion between Monsanto and EPA employees to cover up the carcinogenicity of glyphosate from the public? Or did he ignore the ghost writing, manipulation of science and lack of safety of the final formulation of glyphosate herbicides?

The impact of this ruling is that, unless further legal action is taken, consumers will not see warning labels on food- informing them that they contain cancer-causing glyphosate herbicide. Activists and non-profit organizations that have been testing food items for glyphosate, will not be able to hold food companies accountable and sue on the grounds of not labeling their products. Consumers will not see a label on Roundup, warning them of cancer-causing chemicals within the products and they will continue to use Roundup where their children, grandchildren, and pets play.

This ruling magnifies an enormous problem within our government. We elect politicians into office and expect them to protect us, and they don’t. In addition, Judges are appointed by our elected officials, and the opinion of that one person can supersede the law of an entire state or nation. This Judge, appointed by President Bush in 1990, did not display any knowledge of the effects of this chemical or the process in which a chemical is listed as a carcinogen. When he asked if the chemical was harmful the lawyer on the OEHHA side did not give a sufficient response. Monsanto’s lawyer argued vehemently that the carcinogenic issue was contested and the decision of one agency should not require them to “falsely” label their products. Clearly, all Monsanto had to do was instill doubt regarding the harmful effects of the chemical in order to win their case.

OEHHA’s Sam Delson commented on the case, “While the court granted the request for a preliminary injunction regarding the warning requirement, the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction on the listing itself. The court stated, “plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the listing of glyphosate violates the First Amendment…” We are pleased that the listing of glyphosate remains in effect, and we believe our actions were lawful. We have not decided whether to appeal the ruling.”

Once again, big corporations have influenced the policies of our regulatory agencies and are getting away with hiding the truth about harmful chemicals and our food supply. Once again, activists wonder what it will take to have justice in our country, safe food, and a nation we can be proud of. Clearly, if we wait for our government to do the right thing we will be waiting forever. The answer continues to is up to consumers to get informed, to test even more, share information, and refuse to buy products which contain harmful chemicals and stop supporting a system of corruption and poison.

Performance-driven culture is ruining scientific research

Academia is a highly incentivised game, and there are great rewards for playing it well: comfortable salaries for those at the top, guaranteed employment for those in the faculty, high-profile appointments, press coverage, shiny medals named after dead scientists and opulent robes to dress up in at graduation. In other words: money, fame and prestige.

I worry that the KPI-driven impact culture increasingly means that careful, meticulous and incremental science is anathema in the academy, especially for those at the early stages of their careers. There are many who are so attracted by the prospect of success that they are willing to obfuscate, mystify and perhaps falsify research to game the system and reap the plentiful rewards.

Most of all, I worry that instead of working towards an enlightened future, many are simply selling farmed cobras and calling it progress.

2012 - French court finds Monsanto guilty

...Although scientific evidence on the health impacts of pesticides has been around for many years — and continues to accumulate — court decisions like this one are a rare victory for farmers and eaters.

Broken U.S. policies prevent such liability

In the United States, such an outcome is near-impossible. Current federal pesticide policies put the onus of responsibility on farmers, workers and communities to prove causation of harm, rather than on pesticide producers to prove that their products are safe.

As one farmer who recovered from prostate cancer told a Washington Post reporter, proving health effects of exposure to pesticides over time is the equivalent of “lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut you."

Pesticide corporations have played a powerful role in shaping industry-friendly U.S. policies over the years. From its inception in 1947, our federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act - FIFRA) has been a labeling law with next-to-no exercisable enforcement authority. It specifically protects pesticide corporations from being held legally liable for damages caused by their products, once their products have been registered for use...

California Court Ruling Ends Decades of State Pesticide Spraying

"Now California must ensure these pesticides aren't harming our water supplies and imperiled species like salmon," said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This ruling affirms that people should have a voice in pesticide use in their neighborhoods."

LA Times - Judge orders California agricultural officials to cease pesticide use

Seneff: “Excellent article on golden rice and its continuing failures.”

Golden Rice – A Supreme Hoax, Part of A Supreme Crime

Night blindness resulting from vitamin A deficiency has one and only one cause: Corporate agriculture destroys food production, drives people off their land, requires them to use money it denies them the ability to get, and leaves them to sicken and starve. Golden rice, like every other technological solution, every other alleged “silver bullet”, represents no alternative to this hunger-mongering paradigm. On the contrary golden rice, and GMOs as such, represent nothing but the escalation of this destructive system. GMOs stand for nothing but disease, hunger, starvation, famine. They’re designed to make all of these worse. This design is intentional. And in this case the effect is 100% predictable.

A scientist’s journey from devout GMO believer to skeptic - 2014

What led you to become skeptical about GM foods?

Martineau: The major incident was when the FDA asked us whether we were sure that only the DNA we intended to insert into the tomato’s DNA was actually inserted. After we answered “yes” they asked us to carry out the experiments that would demonstrate that that was indeed the case. In fact, the experiments showed that in 30% of the tomato plants, sometimes more, much more DNA—DNA that was not well characterized and usually contained an additional antibiotic resistance gene—was inserted into our plants.

The Calgene scientists weren’t aware how this added DNA got into the tomatoes?

Belinda Martineau, Ph.D. was a genetic engineer who helped develop the world’s first commercially available genetically engineered whole food, the Flavr Savr™ tomato. But during the development of that tomato, she says “was transformed from a devout believer in the promise of agricultural biotechnology into a skeptic wary of its uncertainties.”

Martineau: We did not expect the additional DNA to be inserted and, as far as I know, scientists still haven’t figured out how to avoid this from happening.

There has been one case of a GM crop plant, called Bt10, which contained such extra DNA, including a gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin. Fortunately, the crop developer pulled the product from the market.

What are other risks do you see with genetic engineering of foods?

Martineau: There can be risks associated with the genes being inserted. For example, the gene inserted into StarLink corn failed multiple tests designed to determine whether it could be a human allergen. The FDA and Center for Disease Control were worried enough about StarLink corn’s possible allergenicity that the US corn crop was monitored for the presence of that GM corn for seven years after it was taken off the market. The gene in another GM corn crop, Bt176, was found to present a much higher risk to Monarch butterfly larvae than other Bt corn crops.

There are also risks associated with the fact that genetic engineers have no control over where in a plant’s DNA their gene will land and they often land in another gene, mutating that gene. Unexpected changes can occur in GM plants as a result of such unintended insertions–and other possible mutations.

Latham: “So you don't need to read the paper: We are not protected by our chemical regulations against neurotoxic industrial chemicals say researchers who worry about the unexplained epidemic of neurological illnesses.”

Consensus statement on the need for innovation, transition and implementation of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing for regulatory purposes.

Abstract: This consensus statement voices the agreement of scientific stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academia and industry that a new framework needs adopting for assessment of chemicals with the potential to disrupt brain development. An increased prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in children has been observed that cannot solely be explained by genetics and recently pre- and postnatal exposure to environmental chemicals has been suspected as a causal factor. There is only very limited information on neurodevelopmental toxicity, leaving thousands of chemicals, that are present in the environment, with high uncertainty concerning their developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential. Closing this data gap with the current test guideline approach is not feasible, because the in vivo bioassays are far too resource-intensive concerning time, money and number of animals. A variety of in vitro methods are now available, that have the potential to close this data gap by permitting mode-of-action-based DNT testing employing human stem cells-derived neuronal/glial models. In vitro DNT data together with in silico approaches will in the future allow development of predictive models for DNT effects. The ultimate application goals of these new approach methods for DNT testing are their usage for different regulatory purposes.

Total ban on bee-harming pesticides likely after major new EU analysis

Jose Tarazona, head of Efsa’s pesticides unit, said: “The availability of such a substantial amount of data has enabled us to produce very detailed conclusions. There is variability in the conclusions [and] some low risks have been identified, but overall the risk to the three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed.”

The Efsa assessment includes bumblebees and solitary bees for the first time. It also identified that high risk to bees comes not from neonicotinoid use on non-flowering crops such as wheat, but from wider contamination of the soil and water which leads to the pesticides appearing in wildflowers or succeeding crops. A recent study of honey samples revealed global contamination by neonicotinoids.

There has been strong evidence that neonicotinoids harm individual bees for some years but this has strengthened in the last year recently to show damage to colonies of bees. Other research has also revealed that 75% of all flying insects have disappeared in Germany and probably much further afield, prompting warnings of “ecological armageddon”.

Seneff: “Good article to help inform you on which foods might be contaminated with glyphosate. Easier to just eat 100% organic than to try to stay away from all these foods!”

DOZENS of Food Crops Treated with Pre-Harvest Roundup (it’s not just wheat!)

Ubiquitous in food production, glyphosate is used not just with row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat but also a range of fruits, nuts and veggies. Even spinach growers use glyphosate (3).

EU to approve ‘marriage made in hell’ between Bayer & Monsanto

Pharmaceuticals giant Bayer agreed to acquire GMO maker Monsanto two years ago. It vowed not to take advantage of its own reputation to forcefully introduce genetically modified crops to Europe against consumers’ will. Monsanto has a longstanding notorious reputation dating back to its production of Agent Orange used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Hundreds of Grocery Stores Say “No” to GMO Salmon—Will Yours?

The Good News

Consumers are rejecting this experimental fish—only 35 percent of Americans would try it—so many retailers are publicly refusing to carry it. Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Target, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Albertsons, Aldi, and more than 60 other chains (over 11,000 stores in total) have all promised not to sell AquAdvantage salmon. Notably, one of the most successful petitions to keep GMO salmon out of grocery stores started right here in Washington State.

This is an excellent reminder of the power you have as a consumer. When you vote with your dollars, even the biggest companies listen!

The Precautionary Principle Asks "How Much Harm Is Avoidable?" Rather Than "How Much Harm Is Acceptable?"

In 1980, a government scientist discovered that breast milk in the US was so contaminated with DDT, PCBs and other industrial poisons that, if it were cow's milk, it would be subject to ban by the US Food and Drug Administration. After two more decades of failed "chemical regulation," a 2001 study showed that babies everywhere in the world were drinking industrial toxicants in breast milk. Worse, in 2005 a small study of the umbilical cord blood from 10 randomly chosen newborns in the US showed that babies are now coming into this world "pre-polluted" with 200 industrial compounds…

Perhaps not surprisingly, in the US, children's health is deteriorating. The incidence of childhood cancers has risen 27 percent since 1974. In the 12 years between 1994 and 2006, childhood chronic conditions (asthma, obesity, learning and behavior problems) doubled (from 13 percent of all kids in 1994 to 27 percent in 2006).

Why Can't Chemical Pollution Be Controlled?

In 1991, scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory identified the reason why industrial poisons have spread everywhere, worldwide. It's because regulators have relied on a decision-making technique called quantitative (or numerical) risk assessment to determine which chemical releases are "safe." By releasing "safe" amounts of 80,000 different chemicals, corporations have contaminated the entire planet, so now no one is safe from chemical harm.

A numerical risk assessment is an estimate of the probability of something bad happening…

Why Corporate Polluters Can't Let Go of Risk Assessment

Corporate polluters love numerical risk assessment for many reasons.

Risk assessment is complex and mathematical, so most of the public can't understand it, much less challenge its conclusions. Therefore, risk assessment diminishes democratic participation and even undermines the legitimacy of government itself. By definition, people cannot give their informed consent to something they do not understand. Weaker government creates more wiggle room for corporate polluters.

Additionally, risk assessment is easily manipulated. Two groups of fully qualified risk assessors, given identical data, can reach wildly different estimates of risk. Therefore, numerical risk assessment fails the acid test of science -- reproducible results -- and does not qualify as "science" or "scientific." Risk assessment is a political art that uses some scientific data. As EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus wrote in 1984, "We should remember that risk assessment can be like the captured spy: If you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know."

Farmers Are Using Flowers To Beat Back Pests Instead Of Chemicals

European Commission: Following the Trump Administration's Retreat from Science-Based Regulation?

In January, European Union agencies published three documents concerning government oversight of nanotechnology and new genetic engineering techniques. Together, the documents put in doubt the scientific capacity and political will of the European Commission to provide any effective oversight of the consumer, agricultural and industrial products derived from these emerging technologies.

Cornell Student Who Took on Bill Gates, Monsanto Plans to Expose Their Agenda Even Further in Blockbuster New Project

In 2016, Schooler let loose in an open letter to Gates and Cornell that went viral.

Sounding off on what he called a “blatant display of unscientific propaganda,” Schooler detailed his experiences in a 2015 course titled “The GMO Debate,” which was completely one-sided in favor of the Biotech industry.

Frustrated, he decided to launch his own series of campus lectures, inviting experts like Frances Moore Lappé, Vandana Shiva, and T. Colin Campbell, all authors with extensive research backgrounds in the field.

With his friends from the GMO WTF lecture series all expected to contribute, Schooler plans to expose the truth on topics including:

-GMO (and industrial) agriculture
-Monsanto (“and their pals” in the GMO industry)
-The current state of our universities (like Cornell)
-Academic freedom & scientific integrity
-Other similar topics including a new way forward

“This is going to be a very unique project… I just believe it has all gotten terribly out of hand and I’m worried that the students are being spoon-fed propaganda on a daily basis right here on campus,” he says in the video.

“I believe this GMO agriculture debate deserves a lot more nuance and a lot more attention and care than (Cornell and Gates have been) offering.”

Monsanto and other seed firms scramble to stop disease in Canada's cash crop

Update from Zen Honeycutt from Moms Across America - California Hearing

Monsanto suing California Attorney General to get Glyphosate off the Prop 65 list so that they don’t have to put a cancer warning on their packing in July 2018.

Poland plans to cut GMOs in animal feed

The Polish agriculture ministry is working on a bill to reduce genetically modified soy in livestock feed.,Poland-plans-to-cut-GMOs-in-animal-feed

Seneff: “Zen Honeycutt expresses a sentiment that I have been feeling for a long time: the people who are committing violent crimes like school shootouts nearly always live on a diet that's high in glyphosate-contaminated junk food. The best way to avoid school shootouts is to fix the diet.”

Could Toxic Food and Medications Be Contributing to School Shootings?

Studies show that many serial killers and criminals have one thing in common: they live on junk food. By Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America

There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. This month’s massacre in Parkland, Florida was one of the worst. Each time I hear about another tragedy, I cannot help but wonder, what did the shooter eat? Was he on SSRIs or psychiatric drugs?

Barbara Stitt, the author of Food and Behavior: The Natural Connection, shared supporting evidence over a decade ago. Stitt discovered through interviewing parolees, serial killers and criminals that regardless of economic backgrounds they all had one thing in common: all of them bragged that they "lived on junk food." In America, tests show that the majority of our junk food—soda, pizza, burgers, ice cream, chips, cookies, highly processed prepared foods—contain GMOs and glyphosate.

The Amish Farmers Reinventing Organic Agriculture - 2014

By studying the immune systems of plants, they've developed a technique that eliminates the need for chemicals.

Morin: What did your chemical rep say when you told him that you didn’t need his services anymore?

Zook: Well, that was an interesting summer. He used to come here every week telling me horror stories about all the diseases in the neighborhood. But, I had made up my made up my mind, “No mas.” He came back every week for eight weeks telling me what I needed to spray. I said, “I’m fine, thanks.” The last time he was here, we were out picking tomatoes and he walked over. He was looking around and talking about this and that, and he didn’t even mention pesticides. “Well,” he said, “your tomatoes look pretty good.” I thought, “Yes!”

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland - 2017

The proposal by the agrochemical giant Syngenta to dramatically escalate use of the harmful neonicotinoid pesticide came last Friday, on the same day the EPA released new assessments of the extensive dangers posed by neonicotinoids, including thiamethoxam.

"If the EPA grants Syngenta's wish, it will spur catastrophic declines of aquatic invertebrates and pollinator populations that are already in serious trouble," said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program. "You know the pesticide-approval process is broken when the EPA announces it will consider expanding the use of this dangerous pesticide on the same day its own scientists reveal that the chemical kills birds and aquatic invertebrates."

Movements of Millions Say No to Gene Drives as Brazil Attempts to Legalize Genetic Extinction Technology

“Brazil is living a serious political, economic, social and environmental crisis, and transnational capital has supported a political coup. Within this context, the government is now changing laws and the Constitution to allow them to take over our natural resources. This decision from CTNBio is illegal, and would allow the dissemination of new transgenic seeds and living organisms without even minimal controls and assessments. We are not staying passive on these assaults, we will fight back against this resolution.”

Just disturbing…

Could WA be the genetic testing ground for 'synthetic mice' to end mice?

DARPA is candid about the "multiple capabilities" of this research, but says it is for defence more than offence - "biosafety and biosecurity tools".

Throughout its history, DARPA has partnered with agritech giant Monsanto to develop products ranging from chemical weapons (including Agent Orange) to robotic bees. DARPA itself began as a Cold War outfit conceived by industrial chemist Charles Thomas, Monsanto's president and chairman.

MIT microbial biologist Kevin Esvelt, who pioneered gene drives, reportedly said they are so risky that championing them for species eradication was "an embarrassing mistake". "Why should you trust a scientist," he asked the Melbourne forum, "who insists on doing work on this kind of technology in secret?"

Sales believes CSIRO and GBIRd are steeped in secrecy. "CSIRO and its GBIRd partners are already developing a gene drive in mice and have selected potential islands for its release. All without any public discussion," she says.
In May, according to an email obtained by Third World Network, DARPA asked GBIRd for "continued cooperation in holding off on media engagement … please politely decline" media enquiries and "refer the reporter to DARPA Public Affairs".

Approached about this article, a CSIRO spokesperson initially said it was "not suitable for us to comment" and emailed back a GBIRd statement which said it was "important to view the broader context".

"In the case of the mice on the island, if traditional methods are not feasible, such as the use of poison baits, are we willing to risk extinction of the seabirds?" it asked.

A Precautionary Tale: How One Small Town Banned Pesticides, Preserved Its Food Heritage, and Inspired a Movement

For organic farmers in the lower Vinschgau valley, the apple orchards proved to be a direct threat to their livelihood. The Gluderer family, for example, had built up a thriving organic herb business over many years. As orchards surrounded their farm, their herbs began to test positive for pesticides. They tried to block drift by growing giant hedges. However, neither the hedges, nor the orchard’s mandatory spray buffer zones were sufficient. As a last resort, the Gluderer family covered their herb beds with an enormous plastic greenhouse. Without its protection, their herbs were too contaminated to sell.

Their experience provided a clear warning to organic farmers in Mals.

A MUST watch video. This is how they keep the information from getting to YOU.

Fox News Reporters FIRED After Exposing Monsanto Milk Link to Cancer in Blockbuster Investigation (with Video)

Editor’s note: This article and video are in reference to a 1997 four-part investigative series on one of Monsanto’s most controversial products, which never aired. The story remains an important lesson in media censorship and how Monsanto wields its high-powered legal division in order to silence the full truth from ever reaching a wide audience.

IRT: “They sicken 130 agricultural workers, and don’t want to be fined.”

Ag Industry Fights Pesticide Penalties and State Efforts to Increase Future Fines

The penalties come as the agricultural industry fights efforts at the state level to increase fine amounts for serious violations of California's pesticide laws.


Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suspects there is a link between increased uses of glyphosate — largely via the process of pre-harvest desiccation — and celiac disease, which has increased dramatically in recent years, particularly among adolescents. “Wheat-based products are showing up with a lot of glyphosate on them, and glyphosate interferes with protein digestion,” says Seneff (celiac disease is triggered by gluten, a protein).

Missouri organic family farm faces ruin after herbicide drift

Tests revealed that the herbicides responsible for the damage were glufosinate, clethodim, and metolachlor.

Their Certified Naturally Grown certification was suspended, and the Brabos must essentially start over to remove the herbicide contamination from their farm. It will take three years at an estimated cost of $1.6 million to remediate the damage and regain CNG certification. According to Mike, they will have to plant cover crops and replenish the soil with beneficial bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi.

Here’s the Worst, Anti-Science Idea of the Week from the Republican Congress

“Cherry-picked science” is quite a charge coming from Smith, a magnet for cash from the fossil fuel and agribusiness industries who is widely regarded as the “preeminent climate change denier in Congress,” to use the veteran Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Hiltzik’s phrase.

“Secret Ingredients”

A new film by Jeffrey Smith (IRT) and Amy Hart is making the rounds. This film shares stories of folks who regained their health after discovering the “secret ingredients” hidden in their food.

Jeffrey is also the creator of the film “Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of our Lives.” This is the film I watched when I started having new scary symptoms five years ago. Three days on an organic diet and the scary new symptoms stopped and after a short period of time, I was able to stop taking Gerd/Acid Reflux drugs. American corporations do not want you to know this information. If you are not sick, they lose customers and your money.

Watch Jeffrey’s films and learn how our food was changed in the early 1990’s to “substantially equivalent” to real food, food.

Get on the list to see Secret Ingredients:

Watch Genetic Roulette now for free:

How a GM giant ‘bought control’ of what millions of Londoners read

The Evening Standard’s lucrative deal with Swiss chemical giant Syngenta shows how commercial giants pay for news – with readers left in the dark.

In the debates and related content, paid for by Syngenta, there was no examination of the financially damaging billion-dollar legal challenges Syngenta was facing across the United States.

Also omitted from the Standard’s coverage was the emerging political controversy over plans by the UK government to rewrite post-Brexit rules on the use of genetically modified seeds in farming – which Syngenta continues to back through expensive lobbying.

Syngenta’s paid-for debates and coverage in the Evening Standard are part of a growing practice inside ESI Media which deliberately blurs the division between advertising and editorial content, senior inside sources have told openDemocracy.

As part of a wider investigation by openDemocracy into the commercial pressures now affecting Europe’s media, former executives, journalists, and other insiders at ESI described a culture where senior editors play a subservient role to commercial masters who effectively run ESI’s operations – with readers left in the dark about who pays for their news, and on what terms.

Fraudulent Organics Certifier to be Reinstated: Does USDA Care?

Sources at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have told us that they are planning to recertify ETKO, a Turkish-based organic certifier. As we’ve reported previously, ETKO has been singled out by some countries, notably Canada and the European Union, for its fraudulent certifications. These countries have “decertified” the organization—meaning that they no longer accept ETKO-certified products as organic.

The USDA has had problems with ETKO as far back as 2009, but instead of decertifying this company, it actually reached a settlement agreement with them in 2016. The firm has been under audit by USDA for about a year.

Protect Your Pets from GMOs and Pesticides in Food

Our companion animals bring such joy and comfort to our lives. They are always there to greet us with a happy welcome home. Pets – like people – are suffering from unprecedented increased health risks including cancer and other debilitating diseases and disorders. Animal studies on animals fed genetically modified food have shown organ damage, potential pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, allergies and more due to GM food. Switching to non-GMO and/or organic diets can help reduce the risk of health problems, assist our pets in recovery and support them to enjoy a longer life span . This website is a resource for pet owners to learn more about the health risks of GMOs and pesticides in pet food, and to provide information on healthier alternatives.
Arty turns 11 this summer.