Weather Channel GMO Whitewash Leads to Truthful Report Following Activism

Weather Channel GMO Whitewash Leads to Truthful Report Following Activism

Last June, the Weather Channel (WC) reported on GMOs, but you could hardly call it ‘reporting.’ If anything, it was an opinion piece holding up the values of biotech and the Big Ag industry, including the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer – some of the largest GMO seed producers as well as pesticide/herbicide producers on the planet.

While I have made my own opinions on GMOs very clear, never mincing words with my advocacy of a GMO-free planet, the Weather Channel offered a one-sided piece on GMOs and did not tell the entire truth about genetically modified crops.

In a previous post, the attempt to discredit the GMO-free movement came in an article published on May 28, which was titled “What You Need to Know About GMOs.”

The headline on the TV station and website’s Facebook page read as follows: “You probably ate GMOs today without even realizing it. Here’s why you’ll be just fine.” The article went on to attempt to paint activists as “anti-science,” a common tactic used by the Biotech industry.

Viewers paid attention, and let the WC know just what they thought of their ‘report.’ The network has now come forward with an updated interview, which includes commentary from Jeremy Gruber, the President of the Council for Responsible Genetics, and author of The GMO Deception.

The WC interviewer even asks “when pests eat GMOs, their stomach’s explode, is that true?” Gruber states that this fact is true, and that we really don’t know what genetically modified organisms do to us. He also points out that they aren’t tested in any long-term toxicology tests and that government regulators don’t force these tests before the public is exposed to GMOs.

The interview is less than four minutes long, but it does offer a more unbiased view of GMOs than the one which the WC previously presented.

You can watch the full video, here.

gmo_weather_channel-e1410478219329

The WC also practically ignored the March Against Monsanto which took place worldwide on May 24, as well as published the authoritative-sounding article titled “What You Need to Know About GMOs” which completely leaves out many relevant things about GMOs that people should know.

Now, we just need to tell the Weather Channel, who has partnered with Monsanto, to remove their support of genetically modified organisms from their Facebook pages and website, or suffer the consequences of a lesser audience.

 Credit:  Natural Society 

 

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens

poison-98648_1280

Big wins can happen in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.

The settlement was approved last year, but details were worked out only weeks ago as to how the funds were to be spent.

The settlement will require Monsanto to do the following:

  • $9 million will be spent to clean dioxin contaminated dust from 4500 homes.
  • $21 million will be spent to test to see if people have been poisoned with dioxin.
  • Citizens will be monitored for such poisoning for 30 years, not just a few months.
  • An additional $63 million is to be allotted if additional tests for dioxin contamination testing is necessary.
  • Anyone who lived in the Nitro area between Jan. 1, 1948, and Sept. 3, 2010 will be tested for dioxin. Although they must show proof they lived in the area, they will be eligible for testing even if they no longer live in Nitro.
  • Former or present employees of Monsanto are not eligible for any of these benefits.
  • An office will be set up to organize testing for Nitro citizens. The registration of participants is to be overlooked by Charleston attorney Thomas Flaherty, who was appointed by the court.
  • Residents have a right to file individual suits against Monsanto if medical tests show they suffered physical harm due to dioxin exposure.

Monsanto Produced Toxic Chemicals in Nitro

Just how were Nitro citizens exposed to dioxin? Monsanto was producing the toxic herbicide Agent Orange in Nitro, and dioxin is a chemical byproduct of the substance. It is known to cause serious health conditions. The factory which produced Agent Orange was opened in Nitro in 1948 and remained in operation until 2004, even though usage of this herbicide in the past (in Vietnam and other Asian countries) was fatal to millions of citizens and the war veterans who were exposed to it.

“There is no doubt that during and after the war, many Vietnamese absorbed this very toxic material [dioxin]. It is our belief from toxicological research and epidemiologicalstudies from many countries that this dioxin probably resulted in significant health effects in Vietnam.” – Arnold Schecter and John Constable

“It’s been a real long haul,” attorney Stuart Calwell told The Charleston Gazette. Calwell represented Nitro area residents in a class action suit that prompted Monsanto to make the settlement.

“The politics of dioxin has been bitterly debated since the Vietnam War, but … we know that there is a health issue there and hopefully people will get their houses cleaned and the risk will come to an end and those exposed in the past will have the benefit of keeping an eye on their health.”

The people of Nitro still need to fill out a register to receive the benefits outlined in the settlement. Due to the pivotal nature of this landmark settlement, Nitro citizens need to participate as fully as possible to set a precedent for other class action suits that farmers and consumers of GMO foods around the world might wage against Monsanto in the future to finally take them down. If enough of us do it at once, then even their bloated coffers will finally be depleted, and we can enjoy a world without being poisoned to death.

While this case did not involve glyphosate, another deadly toxin used in Monsanto herbicides such as RoundUp, its time will come soon.

GMOs linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans – report

GMOs linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans – report

5.siAFP Photo / Khaled Desouki

Genetically modified foods such as soy and corn may be responsible for a number of gluten-related maladies including intestinal disorders now plaguing 18 million Americans, according to a new report released on Tuesday.

The report was released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and cites authoritative data from the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as  international research.

“Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in death,” said  Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT in a statement released on their website.

Smith cited how a “possible environmental trigger may be the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the American food supply, which occurred in the mid-1990s,” describing the nine GM crops currently on the market.

In soy, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa,  “Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders,” according to Smith.

It’s the BT-toxin in genetically modified foods which kills insects by “puncturing holes in their cells.” The toxin is present in ‘every kernel’ of Bt-corn and survives human digestion, with a 2012 study confirming that it punctures holes in human cells as well.

The GMO-related damage was linked to five different areas: Intestinal permeability, imbalanced gut bacteria, immune activation and allergic response, impaired digestion, and damage to the intestinal wall.

[msa-ads data-ad-client=”ca-pub-6965588547261395″ data-ad-slot=”7732882042″]

The IRT release also indicated that glyphosate, a weed killer sold under the brand name ‘Roundup’ was also found to have a negative effect on intestinal bacteria. GMO crops contain high levels of the toxin at harvest.

“Even with minimal exposure, glyphosate can significantly reduce the population of beneficial gut bacteria and promote the overgrowth of harmful strains,” the report found.

Dr. Tom O’Bryan, internationally recognized expert on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease, says that “the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the last 17 years.”

Internist, Emily Linder, offered some backup for the report’s findings. She removed GMO from her patients’ diets, finding that recovery from intestinal diseases was faster and more complete.

“I believe that GMOs in our diet contribute to the rise in gluten-sensitivity in the US population,” Linder said in the release.

Sources:

RT

[msa-ads data-ad-client=”ca-pub-6965588547261395″ data-ad-slot=”7732882042″]

Comparing Vitamin, Mineral and Energy Content of GMO vs. Non-GMO

Comparing Vitamin, Mineral and Energy Content of GMO vs. Non-GMO

Comparing Vitamin, Mineral and Energy Content of GMO vs. Non-GMOby Marco Torres

Consumers select organic foods over genetically modified organisms (GMO) for a variety of reasons, however besides the long list of potential health implications from consuming GMO, the one thing that impacts decision making more than anything else is nutrition. There are convincing differences between organic and GMO foods in nutrient content and health benefits.

Higher antioxidant levels, lower pesticide loads, better farming practices all lead to a more nutritious end product when choosing organic over GMO foods.

For example, tomatoes grown by organic methods contain more phenolic compounds than those grown using commercial standards. That study — published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry — analysed the phenolic profiles of Daniela tomatoes grown either using ‘conventional’ or organic methods, finding that those grown under organic conditions contained significantly higher levels of phenolic compounds than those grown conventionally.

[msa-ads data-ad-client=”ca-pub-6965588547261395″ data-ad-slot=”7732882042″]
Other findings published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organically produced apples have a 15 percent higher antioxidant capacity than conventionally produced apples.

A stunning report on GMO vs. organic corn posted on Moms Across America clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn.

“The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.

  • Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 — non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 — non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

nut_analysis_gmo_corn

Corn_Comparison_2

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Scientists must literally ‘ASK’ these corporations for PERMISSION BEFORE publishing independent research on GMO crops.” (Scientific Amerian, August 13, 2009.)

This article written by the Editors in Scientific American goes on to mention how Elson J. Shields an entomologist at Cornell University and spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists who protested against the ‘blocking’ of ‘unfavourable’ GMO research (ie. research that may not promote GMOs), actually wrote to the EPA. These protests were about the “…selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward (seed enhancement) technology.”

Most nations in the world have no GMO-Free platform to protect their citizens and although this is slowly changing, most nations are far behind places like Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Egypt, Russia and others who have GMO-Free or national bans on GMOs. Nations such as The United States, Canada, China, UK, Australia, Mexico, and most of South America, Asia and Africa who have no formal GMO-free platforms so that they continue their unrestricted and widespread use in all foods.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Sources:
momsacrossamerica.com

via Preventdisease

[msa-ads data-ad-client=”ca-pub-6965588547261395″ data-ad-slot=”7732882042″]