GM soy and birth defects?

When Danish pig farmer lb Borup Pedersen replaced GM soy with non-GM soy in the feeding schedules on his farm, he immediately observed positive changes in the health of the sow herd.

In his discussions with GM-Free Cymru Mr Pedersen itemised the following effects:
◦Within 2 days diarrhoea virtually disappeared in the farrowing house, whereas before we had used 50-100 ml Borgal / day.
◦Since switching, we have not experienced death from bloat in sows or death by ulcers, as opposed to minimum 1 per month previously. (36 sows died due to stomach related sickness over the last two years before switching)
◦No sows have died through loss of appetite, whereas 2 sows died from this cause last year.
◦Even without washing between farrowings, diarrhoea does not now reappear. Previously when we failed to wash between sows, we noticed more diarrhoea.
◦Previously we have struggled with diarrhoea in first layer sows, we do not have this problem any more!
◦Two years ago when the diarrhoea was as its worst, we had months with nearly 30% dead in the farrowing house. At that time it was impossible to find sows that could nurse piglets.
◦Before it was unusual to have a sow with 13 piglets weaned. The average was about 10.5 per sow plus spare mothers. Now we are getting over 12 piglets on average weaned and 14 piglets weaned per sow is common. We have fewer nursing sows, simply because the sows are milking better and eating more.
◦Sows farrow better and we have 0.3 more live births per sow, of which 0.2 is gained from fewer stillborn. Now we have 14.9 liveborn and 1.6 stillborn, averaged over the past 7 months.
◦The piglets weaned are stronger and more evenly sized.
◦Man-hours are reduced by 20-30 hours per month, partly by washing less and because everything is easier.


Milk: Victory Against rbGH!

I know you’ll all find this shocking but Monsanto apparently “bullied” scientists into lying and hid the full evidence of how awful rbGH actually is.

Wow, no really, I’m, uh, shocked.

Since Monsanto actually owns rbGH and we already know how honest and caring Monsanto is about public health where their profits are concerned I’m actually shocked that this truth finally came to light at all.

Read this great piece from La Vida Locavore and boycott any Monsanto ANYTHING!

Big Victory Against rbGH!
by: Jill Richardson
Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:32:09 PM PDT

Remember way back when when several states tried to ban “rbGH-free” claims on dairy? This was a few years ago now. Monsanto, who owned rbGH at the time, helped found a group of rbGH-loving dairy farmers called AFACT. AFACT then pushed to ban any label claims telling consumers which milk came from cows that had not been treated with rbGH. Naturally, that sparked tons of consumer outrage, and ultimately AFACT was unsuccessful in most states where they tried this.
Save for Ohio. Ohio was the one last state where it looked like they might win. Ultimately the fight went to the courts. Today brought BIG news of a court decision in Ohio. The less significant news out of the court is that milk in Ohio can still say “rbGH-free” but it must also contain an FDA disclaimer saying “[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows.”

Now, here’s the BIG news. The court challenged the FDA’s finding that there is “no measurable compositional difference” between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two decades now (maybe more), the FDA’s claim that there was no compositional difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk). Below, you will find the exact language of the court’s ruling, as well as testimony submitted to the FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers’ Union. Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.


Cellphones; This will surely end badly…

I know that it’s easy to get complacent about things that we see and hear about all the time, accepting of the common things in our life that later turn out to be, you know, really bad ideas (think the historical use of ARSENIC to treat syphillis and epilepsy, and more recently painting baby toys with LEAD paint, adding MERCURY to our fillings and vaccinations and stuffing our food sources full of Pesticides, Herbicides, Hormones and Chemicals) but today’s New York Times has an excellent piece on what might just prove to be the next really bad idea.

Whatever your personal views, it’s important to remember that the truth about EMFs, low grade radiation exposure and the effects of modern communication and energy technology on our bodies is not actually known yet…

Should You Be Snuggling With Your Cellphone?By RANDALL STROSS
WARNING: Holding a cellphone against your ear may be hazardous to your health. So may stuffing it in a pocket against your body.

I’m paraphrasing here. But the legal departments of cellphone manufacturers slip a warning about holding the phone against your head or body into the fine print of the little slip that you toss aside when unpacking your phone. Apple, for example, doesn’t want iPhones to come closer than 5/8 of an inch; Research In Motion, BlackBerry’s manufacturer, is still more cautious: keep a distance of about an inch.

The warnings may be missed by an awful lot of customers. The United States has 292 million wireless numbers in use, approaching one for every adult and child, according to C.T.I.A.-The Wireless Association, the cellphone industry’s primary trade group. It says that as of June, about a quarter of domestic households were wireless-only.

If health issues arise from ordinary use of this hardware, it would affect not just many customers but also a huge industry. Our voice calls — we chat on our cellphones 2.26 trillion minutes annually, according to the C.T.I.A. — generate $109 billion for the wireless carriers.

The cellphone instructions-cum-warnings were brought to my attention by Devra Davis, an epidemiologist who has worked for the University of Pittsburgh and has published a book about cellphone radiation, “Disconnect.” I had assumed that radiation specialists had long ago established that worries about low-energy radiation were unfounded. Her book, however, surveys the scientific investigations and concludes that the question is not yet settled.

Read the Article HERE:

On the Menu; More Pesticide Lies and Propaganda

From The Atlantic today, a truly SINISTER and disgusting ploy that was so successful it’ll likely be the start of a whole new wave of Eco Fraud.
Get mad about this people, get very, VERY mad…

The White House garden may be green and unsullied by agricultural chemicals, but Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) just forked over $180,000 to fund an agribusiness-backed smear campaign against the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides,” which includes the “Dirty Dozen,” a list of the foods most commonly found to have pesticide residue.

In July, a website called was launched with the sole purpose of debunking the EWG’s guide. The website, with the headline, “The Real Dangers of the Dirty Dozen List,” was started by the Alliance for Food and Farming, a California-based group that bills itself as a non-profit organization made up of farmers and farm groups who want to “communicate their commitment to food safety and care for the land.”

The agriculture department is paying an industry group to raise questions about its own data. It’s more than a little baffling.In fact, the alliance is little more than a PR front whose directors include executives from corporate agricultural interests such as Sunkist, Western Growers, California Strawberry Commission, California Tomato Farmers, and the California Association of Pest Control Advisors. The alliance requested the federal dollars through the California Department of Food and Agriculture to “correct the misconception that some fresh produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide residues,” according to the alliance’s grant application (PDF). “Claims by activist groups about unsafe levels of pesticides have been widely reported in the media for many years, but have largely gone uncontested.” Presumably, the money will enable the alliance to maintain the site.

<a href="“>

Pesticides you can’t wash off: The very scary truth about systemic pesticides

Ok, I’m really going to try and get serious here again. My first order of business is to say what the HELL are people doing posting ads for Wallgreens VACCINES right under my last post?!!

Not ok, not ok at all.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before any spare inch of virtual screen was up for sale but sheesh people, take a moment to look at what you’re doing before slapping something up here that just looks damn ridiculous!

Now the really depressing news. Say buh bye to those days when you figured it’d be ok to buy those Factory apples if you just washed them really well. Because now, thanks to the chemical tinkering of geniuses beyond my or your simple comprehension, they’ve just starting putting all the poison INSIDE the food.

 Read this cringe-inducing piece from the awesome Mother Earth News:

Systemic Pesticides: Chemicals You Can’t Wash Off

By Barbara Pleasant

In conventional food production systems, not all pesticides remain on a plant’s exterior. Systemic pesticides are chemicals that are actually absorbed by a plant when applied to seeds, soil or leaves. The chemicals then circulate through the plant’s tissues, killing the insects that feed on them. Use of these pesticides on food crops began in 1998, and has steadily increased during the past 10 years. Unlike with traditional insecticides, you can’t wash or peel off systemic pesticide residues because they’re in the plant’s tissues, not on their exteriors.

The four main systemics used on food crops (listed below) are members of the nitroguanidine/ neonicotinoid group of chemicals, which has been implicated in the mysterious colony collapse disorder that has killed millions of bees. (See our article Colony Collapse: Are Potent Pesticides Killing Honeybees?.)

Imidacloprid can be applied to many vegetables (including tomatoes and leafy greens) right up to the day they’re harvested.

Thiamethoxam was first approved as a seed treatment for corn in 2002, and thiamethoxam products that are applied to the soil have since been approved for use on most vegetable and fruit crops. See a photo of seed corn treated with this chemical.

Clothianidin is used as a seed treatment on canola, cereals, corn and sugar beets, and as a soil treatment for potatoes.

Dinotefuran can be applied to soil or sprayed on leafy greens, potatoes and cucumber family crops.

When the Pesticide Action Network reviewed the results of pesticide residue tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1999 to 2007, numerous samples contained residues of these systemic pesticides. For example, 74 percent of conventionally grown fresh lettuce and 70 percent of broccoli samples showed imidacloprid residues. Clothianidin was found in potatoes, thiamethoxam showed up in strawberries and sweet peppers, and some collard green samples were laced with dinotefuran.

click here for the full article:

Twins die moments after Vaccine

GHAZIABAD: Police have sealed Shastri Nagar’s well-known Divya Hospital after nine-month-old twins died there after getting measles vaccination.

Police have also registered a case of culpable homicide against the owner of the hospital, Dr Satvir, who is an Ayurvedic physician. Senior superintendent of Ghaziabad police, Raghubir Lal, said, “We have recovered some documents where Dr Satvir has claimed he is an MBBS degree holder.”

Chief medical officer, Dr R K Dhaon, said, “We have constituted a medical committee to examine the causes of the twins’ death. We can not make any comments until the committee comes to a conclusion. We have sent the viscera of both the babies for forensic examination and a central government team is also examining the case.”

“Dr Satvir vaccinated Chandni even after Charu had already adversely reacted to the vaccination. Besides, he took the twins to another hospital after vaccinating them, and disappeared from there with the vaccination cards,” Lal added.

According to Sunil Sharma, father of the twins and a resident of Swarna Jayanti Puram, the twins were their only children. “Around 6.30pm on Wednesday, we took our twins to Divya Hospital. Dr Satvir vaccinated Charu around 7.30pm, after which she started vomiting. He pushed me out of the cubicle, saying she was fine and gave the shot to Chandni also. When both of them fell sick, Dr Satvir took us to a hospital in Kavi Nagar and disappeared from there. The twins fell unconscious, we got scared and took them to Ganesh Hospital instead. By then it was too late, and the doctors declared them dead,” Sunil explained.

Dr Satvir has been absconding.

SOURCE: The Times of India

I’m BACK!!

Hi all, it’s been so long, I know, do forgive me.
After years of talking about big life changes, and making many of them myself, I’ve gone ahead and made one of the biggest; getting OUT of the office and back into the world, working for myself!
It took long hours and a lot of chaos which kept me from being here, but I’ve missed it and am back with renewed energy and insight. I hope you’ll join me in this new season, new adventure and new life!

Big Surprise; Weeds are now resistance to overused herbicides

Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops


Genetically engineered crops have provided “substantial” environmental and economic benefits to American farmers, but overuse of the technology is threatening to erode the gains, a national science advisory organization said Tuesday in a report.

The report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of genetically modified crops on American farmers, who have rapidly adopted them since their introduction in 1996. The study was issued by the National Research Council, which is affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences and provides advice to the nation under a Congressional charter.

The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also had lower production costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed the higher costs of the engineered seeds.

“That’s a long and impressive list of benefits these crops can provide, and have provided to adopting farmers,” David E. Ervin, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said on Tuesday during a webcast news conference from Washington.

But Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops. These crops are genetically engineered to be impervious to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds while leaving the crops unscathed.

Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate.

“Farmer practices may be reducing the utility of some G.E. traits as pest-management tools and increasing the likelihood of a return to more environmentally damaging practices,” the report concluded. It said the problem required national attention.

More than 80 percent of the corn, soybean and cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered. The crops tolerate Roundup, are resistant to insects, or both.

American farmers were the first to widely adopt the technology and still account for about half of all the engineered crops grown. The crops are also being widely grown in Latin America and parts of Asia but are still largely shunned in Europe.

The rapid adoption of the crops is evidence that American farmers see the technology as beneficial.

Critics of biotechnology, who say the crops may be risky to health and the environment, have issued studies saying that use of the crops has resulted in increased reliance on pesticides and has had only a minimal effect on crop yields.

The National Research Council report, more than 200 pages, was prepared by a committee of mainly academic scientists, and it relied primarily on peer-reviewed papers.

Still, the report is not likely to win over critics of the crops.

One critic, Charles Benbrook, said the conclusion that the crops help farmers might not be true in the future. That is because the report relies mostly on data from the first few years, before prices of the biotech seeds rose sharply and the glyphosate-resistant weeds proliferated.

“This is a very different future,” said Dr. Benbrook, an agricultural economist who is chief scientist at the Organic Center, which promotes organic food and farming. “The cost is going to be way higher. The environmental impacts are going to go up fairly dramatically.”

As prices of the biotech seeds have risen sharply, even some farmers are now starting to question whether they are worth it. Just last week, Monsanto, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, said it would lower the prices of its newest genetically engineered soybeans and corn seeds because farmers were not buying as many as it had expected.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Monsanto, which has patents on the Roundup Ready system, is violating antitrust laws, unduly increasing prices or hindering innovation.

The National Research Council report addresses this issue briefly without mentioning Monsanto. It says that patent licensing terms have “not adversely affected the economic welfare of farmers who adopt G.E. crops.” But it said there was some evidence that the availability of nonengineered crops “may be restricted for some farmers.”

Monsanto, in a statement, said the report “affirms what farmers know — that agricultural biotechnology has delivered substantial environmental and economic benefits.” It said it was working with farmers to help manage and monitor herbicide-resistant weeds.

Shares of Monsanto, which have been falling since January, slipped nearly 2 percent Tuesday to $67.75.

The report said that the use of Roundup Ready crops had led to a huge increase in the spraying of glyphosate but a nearly equal decrease in the use of other herbicides. That is a net environmental benefit, the report said, because glyphosate is less toxic to animals than many other herbicides and does not last long in the environment.

The report compared genetically modified crops with the conventionally grown crops they replaced, not to organic crops.

The use of herbicide-tolerant crops has also made it easier for farmers to forgo tilling as a way to control weeds. So-called no-till farming helps prevent soil erosion and the runoff of rainwater containing sediments and chemicals. The improvement in water quality could prove to be the largest benefit of the crops, the report said, though it added that efforts should be made to measure any such effects.

The other major class of genetically engineered crops consists of the so-called BT corn and BT cotton, which contain bacterial genes allowing the plants to produce an insecticide.

The report said that use of chemical insecticides had declined as BT crops had spread. In areas with heavy insect pressure, it said, the use of the crops has increased farmer income because of higher yields and reduced spending on insecticide.

The report said that when genetically engineered crops were introduced, some had lower yields than conventional varieties, a finding often cited by critics. But the report said newer studies showed either a modest increase in yield or no effect.

Chuck Myers, a corn and soybean farmer from Nebraska who was not involved in the report, said that even if biotechnology had not increased the intrinsic yield potential of the crops, “If you’re controlling a pest, you’re preserving your yield.”


It’s Official: our oceans are totally F@#*ed

Even AOL is sounding the alarm on just how fucked up our global sewars, I mean our OCEANS  of course, have become… I can’t believe that I really can’t even choose a “safe” fish anymore…
  • PCB Levels in Dolphins Raise Red Flags for Seafood Eaters
Updated: 6 hours 27 minutes ago

Dave Thier

Dave Thier Contributor

(Feb. 19) — Researchers have found dangerously high levels of PCBs in dolphins off the coast of Georgia, raising concerns for humans dining on the same fish from the seafood-rich waters, the Charleston Post and Courier reported.

The discovery is especially alarming considering that the Environmental Protection Agency banned PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, for most uses in 1979. In 2009, however, the researchers found that these dolphins had the highest levels of PCBs in the fat of a marine mammal ever. Dolphins eat far more fish than humans, and the massive amount of PCBs that they’ve been ingesting is wreaking havoc on their health.

“Some of these (dolphins) are living on the edge,” Lori Schwacke, principal scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Oceans and Human Health Center of Excellence at Fort Johnson, told the Post and Courier. “Their immune systems have been suppressed to the point where the outbreak of a single virus could result in mass kills. … While we don’t understand the risk to people yet, it’s enough of a red flag to make us want to do further experimentation.”

As a coolant, PCBs were valued for chemical stability, and they tend to have very long half-lives. The fact that the researchers are finding such high levels of a compound banned 30 years ago suggests that these substances posses a troubling longevity.

The researchers originally tested animals near Brunswick, Ga., a heavily polluted area home to four federal Superfund sites. But the real surprise came when they tested animals in an estuarine research reserve 30 miles away and discovered that those dolphins had similar PCB levels as the Brunswick dolphins. As animals, dolphins are homebodies, meaning that it’s likely the fish are doing the traveling.

Schwacke worried that this suggests the PCBs, rather than remaining stationary in the sediment, are moving out into the coastal ecosystem.

Georgia fisheries recently have been hit hard by regulations limiting grouper and red snapper fishing, but these findings may not yet add to those woes. The implication of PCBs in dolphins doesn’t necessarily outweigh the health benefits of eating seafood, but still warrants further research into just how entrenched these dangerous chemicals are in the coastal ecosystem and diet.

2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FDA finally admits BPA risk to humans

From the New York Times
January 16, 2010

F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging

In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.

The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.

The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.

But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.

“If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, at a news briefing.

Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.

BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.

The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.

Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children’s products.

The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing on Friday.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from one generation to the next.

Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies as confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, “We are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded.”

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the F.D.A. had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, Ms. Zuckerman said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.

Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for “some concern,” citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.

Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the F.D.A. of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.

“We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance’s safety, and we’ve closed the gap between N.I.H. and F.D.A.,” Dr. Sharfstein of the F.D.A. said in an interview.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses — similar to human exposures — and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret and may demand more study.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.

Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.