Prop 37 TV Ads!

Support Proposition 37 and our right to know. The rest of the world already does.

OCCUPY THE FOOD SUPPLY!

GMOs are an extension of chemical agriculture: developed and sold by synthetic pesticide production and seed monopolizing companies such as Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science and Scotts.

In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food.

In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food.

Alfalfa (first planting 2011)

Canola (approx. 90% of U.S. crop)

Corn (approx. 88% of U.S. crop in 2011)

Cotton (approx. 90% of U.S. crop in 2011)

Papaya (most of Hawaiian crop; approx. 988 acres)

Soybean (approx. 94% of U.S. crop in 2011)

Sugar Beets (approx. 95% of U.S. crop in 2010)

Zucchini and Summer Squash (approx. 25K acres)

Soon to be? GMO Fish and Scott’s GMO Blue Grass

Nearly 50 countries, including Australia, Japan, Peru and all of the European Union, have significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.

Experimentation on the social and environmental hazards of GMO’s are lacking!

Possible risks of GMO’s could include:

Alteration of unique biodiversity of heritage crops which have ecological, social, economic and scientific values. (CEC 2004) http://www.cec.org/maize/

Creation of more vigorous pests and pathogens and intensification of their effects through hybridization in relation to GMO’s; harm to nontarget species such as soil organisms, beneficial insects and birds. (Snow, A., D. 2005)

Realizing Social Effects:  Loss of food independence, migration and concentration of agribusiness. (Pengue, W.A. 2005)

 

Monsanto Ties: researchers, attornies, lobbyists 

* FDA’s Metabolism & Endocrine Advisory Committee - Dr. Virginia Weldon – Sen. Vice President for Public Policy Monsanto

* USDA, EPA - Lidia Watrud –Mgr, New Tech.

* Dir, USDA NIFA - Roger Beachy –Dir, Monsanto Danforth Center Clarence Thomas – Former Lawyer for Monsanto

* Commissioner of FDA - Michael A. Friedman – Sen Vice President for Clinical Affairs

* Hillary Clinton –Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel     

For more visit: occupy-monsanto.com

Precautionary Principle Comic

Dr. Huber's Warning...

Berlin Sept. 2, 2009. The labyrinth was created by the Federal Institute of Risk Assessment to raise awareness for healthy eating and dangers from harmful substances in food.

Remember when GE alfalfa was released?   

"What's the urgency?", Huber asked. 

A multimillion dollar company breathing down the president's back maybe? Wait for scientific information that would ruin Roundup Ready crops forever?

Never! Let's ruin our soil, crops, livestock and sustainability instead.

"On January 17, internationally recognized plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber, wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of the discovery of a new pathogen and a possible link between Roundup Ready® (GMO) corn and soybeans and severe reproductive problems in livestock as well as widespread crop failure.

Less than 3 weeks later, the Obama administration approved 2 new Roundup Ready® GMO crops, set to be planted this spring... Read on about Dr. Huber's discovery. If it gives you pause, sign the Food Democracy Now! petition to ask President Obama and Sec. Vilsack to stop these seeds from being planted until further research is done.

Roundup Ready® seeds are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s top selling weed killer Roundup, which is made up of Glyphosate and a trademarked formula of component chemicals. In 2007, more than 185 million pounds of Glyphosate were sprayed on America's soils and crops and that amount has only continued to rise as more weeds develop resistance to Glyphosate."
Source: Food Demoncracy Now!

According to the EPA’s Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage 2006-2007 report, Glyphosate is the most commonly used pesticide active ingredient in the agricultural market.  Market estimates in the Home and Garden Market sector are 5-8 million pounds, which means we are depleting our own back yards of beneficial microorganisms and mercury.

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/usage2007_3.htm

Most Commonly Used Conventional Pesticide Active Ingredients, Agricultural Market Sector, 2007, 2005, 2003, and 2001 Estimates

(Ranked by Range in Millions of Pounds of Active Ingredient)

Active Ingredient		Type		2007				2005				2003				2001
				Rank		Range		Rank		Range		Rank		Range		Rank		Range
Glyphosate		H		1		180-185		1		155-160		1		128-133		1		85-90

World and U.S. Pesticide Expenditures

User Level by Pesticide Type, 2007 Estimates

World and U.S. Pesticide Expenditures at User Level

By Pesticide Type, 2006 and 2007 Estimates

Year		World Market				U.S. Market				U.S. Percentage of World Market
Type		Mil $		%		Mil $		%
2006
Herbicides (1)		14,247		40		5,673		48		40
Insecticides		10,259		29		4,091		35		40
Fungicides		7,987		22		1,165		10		15
Other (2)		3,320		9		855		7		26
Total		35,814		100		11,784		100		33
2007
Herbicides (1)		15,512		39		5,856		47		38
Insecticides		11,158		28		4,337		35		39
Fungicides		9,216		23		1,375		11		15
Other (2)		3,557		9		886		7		25
Total		39,443		100		12,454		100		32

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/sales2007.htm

According to the USDA and EPA, the United States spends thousands of dollars a year, totaling nearly half of the world’s expenditures on pesticides.  



"A growing body of scientific evidence has shown that the overuse of Roundup and Glyphosate has created severe micronutrient deficiencies in the soil and plants causing an epidemic of diseases, such as Goss's Wilt on Roundup Ready® corn and Sudden Death Syndrome in Roundup Ready® soybeans."





"Recently a team of top U.S. scientists discovered an organism associated with this rise in plant diseases in Roundup Ready® corn and soybeans which form the foundation for animal livestock feed in the U.S. The organism is observable only by an electron microscope, and was previously unknown to science."

"a replicating and reproducing hitchhiker"... "it's infectious to cattle, pigs, horses, and poultry. It will kill a fertilized egg in 24 to 48 hours" Dr. Huber says.


"This new organism, along with nutritional deficiencies in the Roundup Ready GMO corn and soybean feed, has been associated with a sharp rise in animal infertility including a 20% failure to conceive rate among cattle and hogs and up to a 45% rate of spontaneous abortions within cattle and dairy operations."

Dr. Huber states, "there is direct concern with the continue use or abuse of the system".

 

"In response to the published and emerging science, Dr. Huber wrote a letter to Secretary Vilsack asking him to delay his decision to approve Roundup Ready® alfalfa expressing his grave concerns about the long-term implications of more Roundup Ready® crops on the market."

Huber boasts his concern about Roundup Ready Alfalfa.  In this comment he speaks slowly and definitely, pausing almost, to sink in the point, with finger wagging:  "When you take our number one forage crop and you place it in any kind of jeopardy, we have a tremendous impact on the sustainability of our animal production." He then goes on to state concern for pollinators...





Huber also goes on to say that Roundup ready crops do not have the same nutritional values than non Roundup Ready product.  His concerns were sent to Secretary Vilsack before GE Alfalfa was released, but DID VILSACK LISTEN?! No, and why would he when as Iowa state governor, he originated the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, effectively blocking local communities from regulating where genetically engineered crops would be grown. BAD CHOICE in COMPANY MR. PRESIDENT!

Peeling Back the Label By Gretel H. Schueller, Audubon Magazine (2011)

Audubon Living

Peeling Back the Label

It can be confusing trying to make sense of all the environmental claims plastered on food products lining grocery store aisles. Here’s the truth behind the print.
By Gretel H. Schueller/Photograph by Stephen Wilkes

Take a look at your local grocer’s shelves and you’ll see food with stickers and packages promoting an array of feel-good, environment-friendly assertions—from “cage free,” “hormone free,” and “all natural” to “organic,” “fair trade,” and even “biodynamic.” There’s a reason for all this green branding. Since 2003 U.S. organic food sales have more than doubled, to roughly $25 billion. The booming demand for organic foods is making greenwashing more tempting—and more lucrative—than ever before. One study found that about a third of all new food products launched in 2008 claimed to be “natural.”

With all the different green food labels—there are about 100, depending on how you choose to define them—figuring out which ones are the most meaningful can be challenging. The mother of all eco-labels is, of course, “organic.” Experts say this one showed the way in terms of defining methods of growing food that are gentler on the landscape. But even “organic” has its limitations. For one, organic certification addresses neither working conditions for farm workers nor impacts on wildlife habitat or water quality.

What this all means is these days, you really have to do your homework to know what you’re buying, even if the packaging does have an eco-friendly seal. The following lists aim to peel back the labels.

In the Bag
Third-party certification is the best means for determining whether a label’s claim really makes the grade. These designations are authentic, with a few caveats.   

USDA Organic
Since 2002, when it first went into effect, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s organic seal has been considered the gold standard of organic food. To earn the label, foods must be produced without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, sludge, irradiation, or genetically modified seeds, according to the agency. Cows must have access to pasture a minimum of 120 days per year. There are four tiers of “organic” defined by USDA guidelines. When 100 percent of the ingredients and methods are organic, the product can be classified “100% organic” and stamped with the USDA Organic seal. When 95 percent or more of the ingredients fit the bill, the item can be labeled “organic” and also display the seal. When at least 70 percent of a product’s ingredients are organic, the package can state “Made with organic,” but it cannot include the official seal. Products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients cannot carry the seal, although specific ingredients that are organically produced can be identified as such on the ingredients list.

Fair Trade
This certification looks at economic, social, and environmental criteria: Farmers are paid living wages and have safe working conditions; child labor is prohibited. Fair trade premiums are invested in community development, such as training and organic certification. Most pesticides and all GMOs are banned in favor of environmentally sustainable farming methods that protect both habitat and farmers’ health. In the United States, coffee, tea, herbs, cocoa, chocolate, fresh fruit, sugar, rice, and vanilla are available with this ethically minded label. 

Rainforest Alliance
The independent certification overseen by the Rainforest Alliance aims to reduce water pollution and soil erosion, protect human health, conserve wildlife habitat, improve livelihoods, and reduce waste. More than 84,500 farms totaling upwards of 1.8 million acres—in South America, Southeast Asia, and Africa—have been Rainforest Alliance certified. The chief products include coffee, cocoa, tea, nuts, and fruits.

Food Alliance
This logo requires that certifiers assess a farm or ranch in five areas: soil and water conservation; safe and fair working conditions for employees; limiting pesticide use and toxicity with integrated pest management; animal welfare; and habitat conservation. Industry experts give it high marks. To date, the Food Alliance has certified almost 350 food producers—a number that’s grown nearly 79 percent in the past four years. 

Demeter Biodynamic
This label also takes a whole-farm approach. Not only does it require that foods be produced organically, without the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or animal by-products, it also prohibits the use of genetic engineering. It requires that 10 percent of a farm’s total land be set aside for fostering biodiversity and the humane treatment of animals. The focus is on whole-farm certification instead of on a particular crop or area. 

Salmon-Safe
Some certifiers promote a very specific form of sustainability not covered under the organic umbrella—like protecting salmon streams in the Pacific Northwest from farm runoff, chemicals, and erosion. Salmon-Safe certification is often combined with USDA Organic to provide a “beyond organic” certification. To date it has accredited more than 60,000 farm acres and more than 200 vineyards.

Bird Friendly
Developed by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, this label independently certifies organic shade-grown coffee. Tree canopy height, plant diversity, shade coverage, and streamside plant borders must all meet specific criteria. Certified shade-grown coffee farms provide important sanctuaries for migrating birds. About 1,400 producers grow Bird Friendly coffee, and sales reached more than $3.5 million in 2008.

Certified Humane Raised and Handled
This certification, endorsed by several animal welfare and food safety organizations, including the ASPCA, focuses on humane animal care standards, from birth through slaughter. For example, animals must be free to move about and
“engage in natural behavior.” This means that chickens have room to flap their wings and pigs have space to move around and root. Cages, crates, and tie stalls are prohibited, as is the use of growth hormones and prophylactic antibiotics.

FishWise
This is a three-tier system of color-coded  labels that ranks seafood products according to sustainability criteria. The catch location and the fishing method—longline or hook and line—are also included on the label. FishWise is a program from Sustainable Fishery Advocates, a nonprofit founded by two graduate students in the Ocean Sciences Department at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Its researchers work with the Monterey Bay Aquarium to evaluate sustainability. Each report is externally reviewed for scientific content and accuracy.

Non-GMO Project Verified
This seal, one of the newer labels on food shelves, grew out of the public’s frustration that GMO foods do not require labeling in the United States. Although many products have touted GMO-free claims, there’s been little consistency in the labeling and scant assurance that the products were actually tested. Foods carrying the label are made following “best practices of GMO avoidance,” claims the nonprofit. (Because of cross-contamination and pollen drift, it can’t guarantee that a food is entirely free of genetically modified ingredients.) Certification also requires genetic testing, to guarantee that a product contains no more than 0.9 percent biotech material. That’s the same threshold as in Europe, where GMO labeling is required.

Healthy Grown Potatoes
Many farmers are primed to make a change from conventional farming but aren’t ready to go completely organic, much less sustainable on multiple fronts. For starters, they might try to avoid the most harmful pesticides. That’s what a group of Wisconsin potato growers decided after an especially toxic chemical called aldicarb started showing up in the local groundwater. Working with the University of Wisconsin, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Crane Foundation, and Defenders of Wildlife, the growers adopted a plan to reduce their overall use of chemicals and eliminate the highly toxic ones. To earn this certification, farmers must also restore some of their farmland to prairie or wetlands.

Buyer Beware
Many of the environmental claims are riddled with loopholes. Compounding the confusion is that numerous foods are regulated by different or multiple government agencies. The following labels are weaker.  

Raised Without Antibiotics
Some industry experts are adamant that “no antibiotics” should mean no antibiotics—at any stage of production. Often, however, that’s not the case. One of the most egregious examples: Tyson Foods, the second-largest U.S. chicken producer, was labeling some of its chickens as “raised without antibiotics” despite the fact that it was injecting the eggs with an antibiotic and was using a non-human one in its chicken feed on a daily basis. After several lawsuits, Tyson removed all antibiotic claims. While “no antibiotics administered” and “raised without antibiotics” are considered acceptable by the USDA, there is no verification system in place—which is what enables a company like Tyson to make false claims. The specific “antibiotic free” claim is considered “unapprovable” by the USDA.

Natural
This is one of the most egregiously abused labels, since it doesn’t have to mean anything. And yet in the supermarket it’s lumped together with “organic.” The USDA has defined the term only for use on fresh meat. In this case, it is defined as nothing added to the cut of meat itself. As a result, you could have a cloned animal eating genetically modified food and being fed antibiotics every day and the product could still be labeled “natural.” 

Free Range
When it comes to “free range” and “free roaming,” all a poultry farmer needs to show is “that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside,” according to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The animals may get only short periods outside in a cramped area—the USDA considers five minutes adequate to approve use of the claim. There are no restrictions regarding what the birds can be fed. Such inhumane practices as forced molting through starvation—to increase egg production and therefore profitability—are permitted. There is no third-party auditing. Lax regulation has allowed producers to keep animals closely confined, even if they’re not actually in cages. When it comes to beef and egg-laying hens, the term is completely unregulated.  

United Egg Producers Certified
The logo, devised by the United Egg Producers, falsely implies that the chickens have been treated humanely. Think cramped cages, starvation-based molting, dehydrated birds, denial of veterinary care. (This designation replaces the even more misleading Animal Care Certified, which was banned by the Federal Trade Commission.) 

American Humane Certified
A program of the American Humane Association, this label permits both caged and cage-free options for egg-laying hens. A caged hen can be crammed into a space the size of a sheet of paper. Forced molting through starvation is prohibited, but beak cutting is allowed. 

Dolphin Safe
This is a partially certified claim because the National Marine Fisheries Service verifies only tuna caught from a specific region—the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean—and not all tuna. Tuna from this designated area might bear a label that includes the additional phrase “US Department of Commerce.” Tuna caught outside this area and labeled “dolphin safe” has not been independently substantiated. To muddy the waters further, the dolphin-safe label is not licensed by any single organization, so there are no universal standards in place and most companies have developed their own logos. 

Grass Fed
This label would seem to mean that a cow ate only grass. But all cows eat grass when they’re young. So unscrupulous greenwashers can legally put this label on beef from conventional feedlot cattle. Make sure the label states “100% grass fed.” Better yet—because verification of the claim is voluntary—also look for the USDA Process Verified shield. The agency has defined the label to mean that the cows were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent grass and forage, with no grains or grain products. The cows must also have access to pasture during most of the growing season.

Nutri Clean Residue Free Certification
This label, from the Scientist Certification System’s Nutri Clean program, implies that a food bearing this label is free from pesticide residue, which isn’t entirely accurate. The program merely tests products for pesticide residue and sets limits for the detection of specific ones. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no pesticides used to grow the food. In fact, some of the residue limits are the same as the ones set by the EPA; in those cases, the label really offers nothing more than its conventional counterpart.

Marine Stewardship Council
The MSC got its start as a noble initiative between the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, a major fish retailer. In 1999 both organizations withdrew from all management, and the MSC became an independent nonprofit (see “Gone Fish,” page 94). Today it’s considered one of the biggest seafood certifiers. However, it’s come under attack by some top-tier ocean scientists who say it’s a scheme that fails to protect the environment and needs radical reform. In particular, they question the sustainable certification of several fisheries that in recent years have experienced massive declines. These include the important U.S. trawl fishery for pollock in the eastern Bering Sea. The MSC has also pronounced many destructive bottom-trawl fisheries sustainable. Furthermore, critics say, the MSC’s methodology and assessment can lead to an “inconsistent application of standards.” Last, the program receives financial contributions from corporations that sell MSC-labeled seafood, posing a conflict of interest.

False Advertising
Some common labels are so vague as to be utter nonsense. The terms below have no standards or definitions, or any method of verification. Thus the producer can use them in any way it sees fit, with no repercussions.

Cruelty free
Cage free
Environmentally friendly
Nature’s friend
No chemicals
Vegetarian fed

 

Former Audubon associate editor Gretel H. Schueller writes about science and the environment for a variety of magazines. She also teaches journalism at SUNY Plattsburgh.

Organic Food: Actually Organic, Genetically Modified or Factory Raised?

Let’s politely ask our large, local grocery stores to help us with this one.

Clear labeling and factual information about where and how our food is grown should not be such a struggle. It should be our right to choose what we eat.

The truth is, the companies that produce GM products and the pesticides they are engineered for, do not test for safety on humans, animals or the environment. However, the people that ARE researching GMO and pesticides are our Doctors and Professors, Universities and Medical Centers. WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE PREOFESSOINALS.

The Organic Consumers Association presents that:

Up to 90% of U.S. soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets are now
genetically engineered and routinely inserted into human and animal foods.

Approximately 80% of current grocery food items contain GMOs; while
according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, the majority of beef,
pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs come from AFOs (Animal Feeding Operations).

According to the US EPA 

Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs): are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland.

Your operation is an AFO if:

• You confine animals for at least 45 days in a 12-month period, and

• There's no grass or other vegetation in the confinement area during the normal growing season
Genetically Modified Crops: Insect Resistance and Non-target Effects

However, the environmental benefits of these novel crops need to be balanced against their potential environmental harm. Therefore, unintended negative environmental impacts of Bt-crops need to be evaluated at ecologically relevant scales to ensure the environmental safety and benefits of this new technology. The U.S. EPA needs to continue to ensure the environmental safety of these crops as their use expands and new varieties of Bt-crops are commercialized.

So, although the US EPA website shows concern that the safety and effects of GMO should be tested and studied, they are not thus far even though many are currently grown and used.

Let’s strengthen the GRASS FED notion for healthier meats on every plate.

‘In former lean times politicians promised “a chicken in every pot;” those campaigning in the near future will do well to promise a lamb on every lawn, chicken in every lot.’

Backyard Livestock by Steven Thomas (1976) The Countryman Press

The most impressive fact that tells me it is time for us to take control over our food industry is older books. I am now finding, receiving and reading books from the 70s and 80’s that warned then about the problems and concerns Americans should have for our food and the way it is created. Although these books may not be new to many of you, they are cherished by me as relics of real Americans.

Let me quote from one of my newest library additions which is thoroughly researched and well put together.

    “The problem of producing sufficient food is complex and many-faceted. There are no easy solutions. However, it has become obvious that modern agribusiness with its impressive arsenal of insecticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, monstrous machinery and large, specialized farms is not the ultimate answer we once thought it was.

    The inability to produce and distribute adequate quantities of food is not the only shortcoming of agricultural technology. In many cases production methods are depleting soil fertility and polluting our land, water and air at a dangerous rate, the quality of some of its products is questionable and vast numbers of small famers are being strangled.”

Raising the Home Duck Flock by Dave Holderread 1978 Garden Way Publishing/Storey Communications, Inc. Printed in the US by Edwards Brother 1989

Mind you this was in 1978. Why didn’t we get the point then? The research mounting about large “specialized” corporations and the negative affects they are causing to us, our animals, our environment and the American reputation should no longer be ignored.


Although I’m sure I could convince you in person that pesticides are dangerous, genetically engineered food has just as shoddy testing and you should sign my petition, I’m going to have to rely on the internet once again for gathering some concerned citizens.

I can’t help but dream about a healthy and productive America.

Living the dream of a healthier tomorrow too?
Contact your grocery stores big and small. Start Here.
Sign my petition which is an online version of the Organic Consumers Association’s GMO & Factory Farm Truth-In-Labeling Petition

Image From: http://athleteoctane.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/crop_duster_mtopper.jpg

HAEMATO-BIOCHEMICAL AND IMMUNO-PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CHRONIC TOXICITY WITH SYNTHETIC PYRETHROID, ORGANOPHOSPHATE AND CHLORINATED PESTICIDES IN BROILER CHICKS Garg U.K. et al., International Immunopharmacology, 4(13):1709-1722 (2004)

This study examined the results of low level pesticide exposure to broiler chicks. Results include atrophy/hypoplasia of the thymus and spleen. As well as hemoraging of the thymus. The results lead authors to believe that “the chronic exposure of chicks to small amount of synthetic pyrethroid (SP), organophosphate (OP) and chlorinated pesticides (CH) leads to deleterious effects on metabolism and immune system of birds.”

NICOTINOID AND PYRETHROID INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE IN HOUSEFLIES (DIPTERA: MUSCIDAE) COLLECTED FROM FLORIDA DAIRIES. Kaufman PE et al., Pest Management Science. 66(3):290-2944 (2010)

Populations of houseflies in Florida have been found to have substantial resistance to nicotinoid and pyrethroids, due to the overutilization of these insecticides. Resistance to pyrethroids is commonly found in Florida where a great deal of spraying occurs. According to the authors, “Imidacloprid resistance is emerging, and tolerance was observed to both imidacloprid and nithiazine.” These findings raise concern on the overuse of several insecticides in our dairy farms and concerns for residues in our milk.

LEVELS OF ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES RESIDUES IN DAIRY PRODUCTS IN KUMASI, GHANA Darko G. and Acquaah S.O. Chemosphere, 71(2):294-298 (2008)

This study finds pesticide residues in milk, cheese and yogurt of six communities in Kumasi, Ghana. This study suggests that an accumulation of pesticide residues may pose problems in humans and effective monitoring of residues in the environment is needed.

REPEATED DOSE 28-DAY ORAL TOXICITY STUDY IN WISTAR RATS WITH A MIXTURE OF FIVE PESTICIDES OFTEN FOUND AS RESIDUES IN FOOD: ALPHACYPERMETHRIN, BROMOPROPYLATE, CARBENDAZIM, CHLORPYRIFOS AND MANCOZEB Jacobsen H. et al., Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(8):1269-1277 (2004)

The study examines the effects of five pesticides commonly found in our food. The study was conducted on a repeated 28 day oral dose cycle, finding toxicity in Wistar rats. The authors observed the following effects to the pesticide combinations as ingested by the rats: a series of considerable physical changes including: hypertrophy of central liver cells as well as increased weight, decreased thymus weight, and increased thyroid gland weight. The white blood cell count decreased, and “red blood cell count, haematocrite and haemoglobin concentration was significantly reduced.” The authors suggest that further studies should be made to determine effects of individual and combinations of pesticides.

DEATH OF THE BEES GMO CROPS AND THE DECLINE OF BEE COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA Brit Amos/Global Research Staff 25 March (2008)

Summary: This article states that there is obvious proof that the ingestion of GMO proteins is one of the major reasons behind colony collapse disorder in bees. This pertains to the digestive shutdown (inability to pass foreign genetic agricultural matter i.e. fecal) that is taking place within the honey bees. And there are some dramatic parallels with the difficulty human beings might be experiencing with a GMO diet that could be compromising not only a person's immune system as evidenced by a substantial rise in colon cancer.