Will healthy food crops go extinct?

Will healthy food crops go extinct?

By Jon Rappoport

March 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

A new US survey highlights the ominous “gene drift” problem, the contamination of organic food crops by GMOs from other farms.

This is not a new situation. It has been present since the introduction of commercial GMO crops in 1996.

The survey was conducted by two groups: Food and Water Watch, and Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (on Facebook). Questionnaires were sent out to 1500 organic grain farmers. From the 268 responses, a key factor emerged:

One out of three responding farmers have dealt with GMO contamination on their farms. Of those contaminated farmers, over half have been rejected by their [organic] buyers for that reason. They [the farmers] reported a median cost of a [rejected] semi-load (approximately 1,000 bushels) of $4,500.”

Contamination is accomplished by insects, birds, and wind. It’s a fact of life. It can’t be avoided, despite establishing buffer zones between farms.

In the long run, every healthy food crop is threatened. How can pure farming survive intact, when particles containing GMOs are in the wind?

We’re looking at something roughly analogous to lab safety, where contamination is famous. Stricter and stricter measures are put in place to avoid it, but even in the most secure facilities, it occurs.

For the past decade, in the US, major activism has been directed toward the labeling of food containing GMOs. It has been an uphill battle. Meanwhile, the gene drift continues.

At what point will labeling become an empty gesture, because the overwhelming majority of food grown in the US, including organic, is contaminated with GMOs?

Facing up to this is difficult, to say the least, for those activists who have been working themselves to the bone to achieve labeling of GMO crops.

They make an assumption of what I call temporary coexistence. The argument goes this way:

We’ll use the battle to label GMOs as step one, which involves educating the public and acquiring a few victories in states. Soon, hundreds of thousands or millions more Americans, who are able to see, finally, what kind of food they’re buying, will reject GMOs. Food growers and sellers will be forced to switch over to non-GMO. This action will starve Monsanto and other food giants, and they’ll have to concede defeat…”

That’s the best-case scenario. Ignoring several questionable assumptions in that argument, the long haul to achieve a few labeling victories will compete with gene drift, which goes on no matter who wins or loses.

You can be sure Monsanto is counting on this. Monsanto sees a fait accompli. “Doesn’t matter what you people want, we’re all GMO now, all food crops contain GMOs, the gene drift wins.”

Activism took an inadvisable turn in the road some years ago. It opted for labeling, instead of outright bans on growing GMO crops.

Activist leaders decided coexistence with Monsanto was unavoidable—at least for the time being.

The result of that decision was available, for all to see, in the nature of the television ads taken out in California and Washington state, during the campaigns to pass labeling initiatives.

The ads were weak, bland, and without anything resembling a hard edge. Attacking Monsanto head-on was out of the question.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again—being on the side of the angels in a political battle doesn’t guarantee victory. That’s a brand of New Age thinking that will take you into extinction.


Exit From the Matrix


To achieve bans on growing GMO crops depends on showing people the true threat GMOs and Monsanto pose to: human health, the survival of non-corporate farmers, and the future of agriculture (and therefore life) itself.

In other words, you have to attack, no holds barred.

If the public feels no threat in their guts, they will walk away from the whole situation.

And again, most importantly, the gene drift isn’t waiting for a political vote on a ballot measure.

The US still leads the world in GM plantings, with 170 million acres in 2012, which produce 95% of the nation’s sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn.” (USA Today, 2/28/12)

Think of that acreage as a weapon. It launches genes to organic farms, to non-GMO farms.

Monsanto is fully aware of this.

We’re past the point of arguing labeling vs. outright bans on growing GMOs.

Those men who have been leading and bankrolling the battle to label GMOs are businessmen. They see market forces, PR, consumer power, buying trends. They try to apply that knowledge and mindset to a political struggle. It doesn’t work.

And it certainly doesn’t factor in the rates and results of Monsanto genes drifting on the wind all across America, contaminating food on the land.

The counter-plan is simple and obvious:

For starters, at a fraction of the cost of bankrolling GMO labeling initiatives, engage fearless, talented, ingenious artists and filmmakers who absolutely take no prisoners.

Within several months, spread their new ads all over the Net. All over the planet.

These attack ads feature small farmers who have been put out of business by Monsanto and driven up against the wall, families of farmers who committed suicide, outraged mothers with their babies who are destined to grow up in a toxic Monsanto world, scientists who are ready to torpedo Monsanto with the facts about GMOs, terminally corrupt Congressmen who are on Monsanto’s pad

I’m talking about ads that are in your face, in your mind, in your soul. Ads that mock, that destroy, that rip open the truth and expose a nest of scrambling maggots.

Mercilessly go for the throat. Day by day, hour by hour. Attack the enemy.

Law suits mounted by Monsanto?

Beautiful.

Counter-sue.

Make a public non-stop spectacle of those law suits.

I know several stone-cold lawyers who would love to bring Monsanto executives and scientists to a deposition table, uncovering decades of corruption and driving the enemy to a Hell beyond his wildest dreams.

After six months, the idea of banning GMO crops will start to look very good, like a very, very sane action.

Do we want to win? Or be nice, and lose?

In this kind of battle, being nice is nothing more and nothing less than living in a trance. It’s a form of mind control.

Stop thinking of the war as fanning a small spark through polite education, and trying to make it spread.

Stop thinking of the public as a mass of politically correct cowards who have to be coddled and led through hoops, one at a time.

Stop thinking of the war against Monsanto and its allies as a consumer joust in the free market.

Anyone out there with a few deep pockets and an appetite for causing a very good kind of trouble should take note.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

HazMat alert: use robots to approach Froot Loops

HazMat alert: use robots to approach Kellogg’s Froot Loops

by Jon Rappoport

March 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Actionnetwork.org describes Kellogg’s Froot Loops:

We sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and found the corn and soy are 100% Roundup Ready GMO. Sugar is also a Roundup Ready GMO.

Roundup Ready means the GMOs are sprayed with Roundup (glyphosate), a toxic weed killer, which is absorbed by the plant. Glyphosate was also patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic in 2011.

Not only is the corn in Froot Loops sprayed with Roundup, but it is a pesticide in its own right, registered with and regulated by the EPA.

Every cell of the [corn] plant produces pesticides called Bt toxins. When rootworms bite into it, their stomachs rupture and they die. How disturbing is it that Kellogg’s is feeding children pesticides & antibiotics, without their parents’ knowledge or consent?”


The Matrix Revealed


A word to the wise and honest doctor, wherever he or she may be. This is the scenario you want:

A mother comes into your office with her little daughter. She takes out a piece of paper and reads a laundry list of the child’s inexplicable symptoms.

You, the doctor, sit back, nod sagely, pause, and ask, “Is your darling little daughter by chance eating Kellogg’s Froot Loops?”

The mother’s jaw drops. She nearly falls off her chair.

How did you know, Doctor?” she says. “My girl can’t get enough of it!”

You incline your head toward her modestly, and reply, “Occasionally, I have psychic intuition. Let me put in a call to the local HazMat team and get them over to your house. Where exactly in the kitchen is the toxic material, the Froot Loops, stored?”

Oh,” the mother says, “we leave the box out on the counter. My daughter snacks on it all day long.”

You shake your head. “I have a contact at the Pentagon. I’ll go to him direct. This is an emergency.”

Note: Kellogg’s kicked in $800,000 to defeat Prop 37 in California, thus avoiding the need to label genetically engineered food products.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Power grab at the top of the natural foods industry

Power grab at the top of the natural-food industry

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

From a February 13 article, “Who owns organics now?”, at the Cornucopia Institute:

In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.”

At Cornucopia, you can view Philip H Howard’s monster chart (updated) depicting the Big Food owners and the companies they’ve bought.

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

Some of those Big Boy Buyers? Nestle, Coca Cola, Pepsi, M&M Mars, Campbell Soup, ConAgra. These are also companies who put up money to defeat GMO-labeling ballot measures in California and Washington state.

Consider another big buyer. Hain Celestial. Starting in the mid-1990s, they’ve purchased:

Ella’s Kitchen; Earth’s Best, Walnut Acres; ShariAnn’s; Mountain Sun; Millina’s Finest; Frutti di Bosco; Sunspire; MaraNantha; Westbrae; Westsoy; Little Bear; Bearitos; TofuTown; Nile Spice; Blue Print; DeBole’s; Garden of Eatin’; Arrowhead Mills; Breadshop; Health Valley; Casbah; Imagine/Rice; Dream/Soy; Dream; Celestial Seasoning.

This buying spree was aided by investments from HL Heinz and George Soros.

Currently among the top shareholders of Hain Celestial: Goldman Sachs and Blackrock.

Blackrock is the world’s biggest asset manager. In 2009, the US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury Department contracted Blackrock to evaluate “distressed federal assets” worth $130 billion.

From 2010-2013, notorious corporate raider, Carl Icahn, owned 12% of Hain Celestial.

-Nothing personal, it’s just business. We just add companies to our portfolio. We consolidate our position in the industry.-

People used to think the natural-food world was a dedicated mom-and-pop operation. Not anymore.

It’s big fish eating little fish.

And what happens to the food itself, when companies buying other companies becomes the real game in town?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Annie’s natural foods, Carlyle Group: same top shareholders

Annie’s natural foods, Carlyle Group: same top shareholders

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The images of these companies couldn’t be connected in your wildest dreams.

One, a natural foods outfit. The other a shadowy elite with big front men like George HW Bush and James Baker and John Major.

One company started in a garden and a home kitchen. The other started behind the curtain of global economics.

With Annie’s you get organic bunny fruit snacks. With Carlyle you get a business relationship with the bin Laden family. You get a major defense contractor, because Carlyle invested in defense corporations at a time when Bush Sr. was its PR star, and his son, in the White House, was jacking up the Pentagon budget.

The catch is, Annie’s and Carlyle are both publicly traded companies.

The second top shareholder, at the moment, in Annie’s is FMR, LLC, an investment fund. FMR holds 1,281,588 shares of Annie’s.

FMR is also the second top shareholder in Carlyle. It holds 4,081,247 shares.

The fourth top shareholder in Carlyle is Times Square Capital Management, LLC. It holds 2,195,000 shares.

Times Square Capital is the number-one shareholder in Annie’s:1,661,070 shares.

(Source on stats: Yahoo Finance)

What does this mean? What are the implications?

As I explained, when I published an article showing identical major shareholders in Monsanto and Whole Foods, it means big investment money travels far and wide.

It means investment funds cover the waterfront of companies.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/top-shareholders-in-whole-foods-and-monsanto-identical/

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/what-the-whole-foods-monsanto-connection-really-means/

These funds don’t climb down from their perch and suddenly start giving orders to the CEOs of Annie’s and Carlyle. They just buy and sell stock. They look to make profit.

Investment funds use algorithms and computer models and, based on the results, they buy stocks.

But…if they want to, if they perceive “something is wrong and needs correcting,” they can cast proxy votes and affect companies’ policies and actions. They can exert compelling influence.

These giant investment funds float like clouds over the financial landscape. They move, they drift. But they can coalesce and make it rain. If they want to. They have that ability.

They have that power. They manage and control enormous sums of money, which they invest.

Here are eye-popping figures. According to the 2013 Investment Company Fact Book, published by the Investment Company Institute, the “total worldwide assets invested in mutual funds” is:

$26.8 trillion.

US investment company [investment funds] total net assets”: $14.7 trillion.

US investment companies share of US corporate equity”: 28%.

US investment companies share of US municipal securities? 28%. Share of commercial paper? 42%. Share of US government securities? 12%.

Investment funds get their money from individuals, families, communities, governments, corporations, foundations, and they invest it.

In a crisis, in a “situation” where these funds deem a publicly traded company has “gone too far,” has “wandered off the reservation,” has, for example, developed a product which would “unsettle the economy”—like a new cheaper energy source—these funds could choose to descend from their thrones and crack the whip.

If tomorrow, the CEO of Annie’s woke up and decided that labeling GMOs was not enough, and what America really and urgently needed was a ban on all GMO crops, its investment fund shareholders could take out the whip and beat down Annie’s stock price.

If tomorrow, the bosses at Carlyle found a way to secure a greater stake in Russian natural resources, or further a US war against yet another foreign nation, its investment fund shareholders could smile and gobble up more Carlyle stock, driving up the price, and forwarding those imperial goals and objectives.

This is called a controlled economy. When it counts.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Covert chemical warfare/a time bomb in the Ukraine

Covert chemical warfare / and a time bomb in the Ukraine

by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the entirely justified blow-up over the poisonous effects of Monsanto’s Roundup, recent history has been pushed to the side.

There are, of course, other companies and other poisons (herbicides, pesticides).

For example, read this from “Transport and Trade,” published by the Pesticide Action Network: “…US [companies] shipped nearly 1.7 billion pounds of pesticide products to other countries from 2001-2003…

more than 32 tons per hour…

Nearly 28 million pounds of these pesticides are banned for use in the US.”

Consider this broad 1997 indictment: “…large international corporations are able to sell pesticides abroad that cannot be sold in the U.S. These corporations sell pesticides that are classified as so harmful to human health and the environment, that their use cannot be justified for any purpose.” (Jefferson D Reynolds, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, “International Pesticide Trade”)

A case in point: Propargite. Writing in the Albion Monitor (May 5, 1996, “US Firm Exports Hazardous Pesticide”), Haider Rizvi describes the chemical as “a widely used pesticide for control of mites on a range of fruit, grain, vegetable, nut and fiber crops.”

Here are quotes from the Monitor article:

The US-based Uniroyal Corp. will continue selling a hazardous pesticide to farmers overseas even though the product has been withdrawn from domestic markets for ‘health and safety reasons.’”

In a recent agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the company canceled nearly a dozen uses of the pesticide Propargite in the United States. But, the accord does not affect sales of the suspected carcinogen in other countries.”

Its recent agreement with EPA prohibits Uniroyal from selling propargite for use on nearly a dozen [US] crops — including apricots, apples, peaches, pears, plums, figs, strawberries, and green beans — because of its cancer-causing potential.”

Both independent and EPA scientists say infants and children are especially vulnerable to the potential dangers of exposure to Propargite-treated food products, which include damage to the nervous system, as well as cancer.”


The Matrix Revealed


Here’s the capper:

Despite banning a dozen uses, the EPA-Uniroyal agreement still allows the company to continue production and distribution of Propargite for use on nearly 30 other [US] crops, including grapes, cotton, grapes, watermelon, and potatoes.”

And remember, along with destruction wreaked on people in countries to which the US exports these chemicals, the food grown and sprayed in those countries is shipped back to the US for sale. This route was called “the circle of poison.” That phrase has dropped out of popular usage.

Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, and other mega-corporations don’t let up. They continue in the tradition of the infamous IG Farben—chemicals for destruction.


Exit From the Matrix


In 2009, I researched the problem of pesticides in the Ukraine. Use is not the only issue; so is storage. And the scope and danger are huge.

Tamara Gurzhiy, “Expired and prohibited pesticides problem in Ukraine,” Independent Agency for Ecological Information, Kharkiv, Ukraine (English translation):

Twenty thousand to 25,000 t [tons] of expired or prohibited pesticides are stored on 4,000 Ukrainian depots. This is a serious threat for people and environment. Arsenic compounds are highly toxic for cattle. Death comes within several hours…Majority of pesticide depots were not designed for long-term usage. Chemicals are stolen and illegally sold to people. Depots’ roofs collapsed over the time, pesticides’ wrapping gets [out of] of order, pesticides of different nature may become [a] catalyst of spontaneous chemical reactions with unpredictable results. Spontaneous fire may spread toxins on a wide area. Utilization of expired and prohibited pesticides is Ukrainian national problem.”

Indeed, there was a fire in 2009.

Simferopol, October 17 (Interfax-Ukraine): “A storehouse with pesticide in Dzhankoi (Crimea) is on fire…around 200 tonnes of pesticide and magnesium chloride…around 40 tonnes of pesticide was taken from the storehouse…” How extensive were the toxic clouds? Is this the real reason for 2009 reports of a million people ill in the Ukraine with Swine Flu?

BRNO, Czech Republic, Sept. 23 /CNW/ – According to Milieukontakts Partner IHPA (the International HCH and Pesticides Association) the health of at least 7 million inhabitants in Moldavia and Ukraine is seriously threatened by a stock of old pesticides. IHPA calls for fast EU action to disarm this ‘biggest chemical time bomb of Europe’.

…[in] the former Kalush factory in the west of Ukraine there is a stock of no less than 10,000 tonnes of superfluous Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). It’s particularly the positioning along the Dniester river that makes the situation extremely hazardous: a single flood and the high concentrations of poison would pollute the natural habitat of some 7 million people in the west of Ukraine and Moldavia.

In total, tens of millions of inhabitants in Europe, Central Asia and the former Soviet Union are being threatened by pesticides. In Ukraine alone there are 4,500 storage locations with more than 30,000 tonnes of old pesticides, a legacy from the Soviet era. The substances have been prohibited since 2001. As a rule the packaging only lasts five to ten years. If nothing happens in that time, then the substances could simply end up in the soil or in the water…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

“Not one case of harm from GMOs”

“Not one case of harm from GMOs”

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here are two GMO quotes. I’ll let them speak for themselves, and then make a few comments.

QUOTE ONE: “This compilation is a sample of the scientific references including over 1200 studies, surveys, and analyses that suggest various adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE/GMO) crops, foods and related pesticides. This list contains references regarding health impacts, environmental impacts, including impact of non-target organisms (NTOs), resistance of target organisms, genetic drift and drift of pesticides, horizontal gene transfer, unintended effects, as well as references regarding yields, social impact, ethics, economics and regulations. In most cases, links are provided to the abstracts for the references.” (See gmofreeusa.org, “GMO Science,” for the list of 1237 specific references.)

QUOTE TWO: “If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food…The bottom line for me is that there is no more risk in GMO food than conventionally farmed food, it has nothing to do with genetic engineering…” (Statement of Anne Glover, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, in a July 24, 2012, interview with EurActiv.)

No problem, nothing to see here, no harm, no foul.

The existence of 1237 references that contradict Anne “the science is settled” Glover (twitter: @EU_SceinceChief) doesn’t automatically prove GMOs are harmful, but it does prove she’s a parrot. She’s just mouthing the talking point that all GMO advocates deploy.

And she hasn’t studied these 1237 (and more) references to see what’s there.

Instead, she herself is a study in studied ignorance.

* Abdo E. M., et al. Chemical Analysis of BT corn “Mon- 810: Ajeeb-YG®” and its counterpart non-Bt corn “Ajeeb”. IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSR-JAC) e-ISSN: 2278–5736. Volume 4, Issue 1 (Mar.–Apr. 2013), PP 55–60

* S. L. Abidi, G. R. List, K. A. Rennick (1999) Effect of genetic modification on the distribution of minor constituents in canola oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 463-467

* Accinelli, C.; Screpanti, C.; Vicari, A. & Catizone, P. (2004) Influence of insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium in soil samples. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,103, 497-507

* Achiorno, C. L., C. de Villalobos, and L. Ferrari. (2008) Toxicity of the Herbicide Glyphosate to Chordodes Nobilii (Gordiida, Nematomorpha). Chemosphere 71, no. 10 (May): 1816-22.

* Acquavella JF, Alexander BH, Mandel JS, Gustin C, Baker B, Chapman P, Bleeke M. (2004) Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmers and their families: results from the Farm Family Exposure Study. Environ Health Perspect. Mar;112(3):321-6.

* Adam A, Marzuki A, Abdul Rahman H, Abdul Aziz M. (1997) The oral and intratracheal toxicities of ROUNDUP and its components to rats. Vet Hum Toxicol. Jun;39(3):147-51

* Adugna A, Bekele E: (2013) Geographical distribution and phenotypic diversity in wild sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)] in Ethiopia: implications for germplasm conservation and crop-wild flow. Plant Genet Resour , 11:68–76

* Asfaw Adugna (2013) Ecotypic variation for seed dormancy, longevity and germination requirements in wild/weedy Sorghum bicolor in Ethiopia: implications for seed mediated transgene dispersal and persistence SpringerPlus May, 2:248

* Adugna, A., & Bekele, E. (2013) Morphology and fitness components of wild 3 crop F1 hybrids of Sorghum bi- color (L.) in Ethiopia: implications for survival and introgression of crop genes in the wild pool. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization: 1-10

Only 1228 more references to go, Anne.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

What the Whole Foods-Monsanto connection really means

What the Whole Foods-Monsanto connection really means

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I wrote and posted an article, “Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical.” I laid out the five investment funds that hold huge numbers of shares of both companies, and, the ‘proxy voting guidelines’ of Vanguard (note: one of Vanguard’s investment funds is THE top shareholder of Monsanto and the fourth largest shareholder of Whole Foods).

This means very little to Monsanto. But to Whole Foods—that’s a very different story.

Suppose, for example, Whole Foods executives suddenly decided the best and most ethical approach to GMO crops is to ban them altogether. Not label them. (I know, it’s a fantasy, but just suppose.)

And suppose Whole Foods led such a movement.

Now, the investment funds that own all that Whole Foods stock could decide Whole Foods was going too far, and needed to be taught a lesson. The lesson could come in the form of unloading WF shares and sending the company’s stock price plummeting.

The message would be: “Look, if you want to label GMOs, it won’t make Monsanto and Dow and the other ag-bio-tech giants very happy, but they can handle the fallout from labeling. If you start to get serious, though, and go for an outright ban on GMO crops in counties across America…that’s a no-no. That’s a violation of the existing order, and we will punish you.”

In other words, if a company is playing in the field of the big boys, the money boys, who buy and sell shares in the millions and billions without blinking an eye, the game changes. The rules tighten. The options dwindle.

The men who came up with the money to back those GMO-labeling ballot initiatives in California and Washington? They were doing anti-GMO Lite. That’s the soft approach. That still leaves the majority of farm acreage in America with GMO crops—and genes drifting into non-GMO growing fields 24/7.

But a real movement, with money behind it, to ban growing GMO food? That’s anti-GMO Heavy. That’s going for the throat.

In the world of buying and selling stocks in publicly traded companies, companies are under a ceiling. The CEOs know serious activism of any kind, on any vital issue, can disturb Big Money, the kind of money the giant investment funds use to send the market up…and take it down.

All publicly traded companies willingly sign on to a tacit understanding. They’re “in the stock market.” They’re in that world. They’re in a space where the status quo is respected and acknowledged.

The boundaries are drawn.

That world, in certain respects, resembles one of those Club Feds, where white collar criminals and other Lite offenders are sent to serve out their sentences.

The convicts enjoy many privileges. Within those fences, they can move about with relative freedom. But if an inmate decides to hop the fence and go out into the wider world, and if he’s caught, he’ll find out what a real prison feels like.

In an interview I did years ago with Richard Bell, a financial analyst, Richard put it to me this way: “Imagine that a publicly traded energy company suddenly brought out a device that supplied enormous amounts of energy at a very, very cheap price.

Among the many punishments that would be heaped on the company, its stock price would go into free fall. It would be taken down, amid accusations of fraud. It would be massacred in the market…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical

Top shareholders in Whole Foods and Monsanto: identical

By Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Is there a Whole Foods-Monsanto connection?

The answer is yes.

But the important question is: what does this connection mean?

What does it imply?

Is it significant?

If you consult open listings (for example, investors.morningstar.com), you can look at the major shareholders of these two publicly traded companies, Monsanto and Whole Foods.

If you read the top 10 shareholders for each company—the holders of the most stock—you’ll see that five out of those ten are the same.

Who are those five?

Don’t prepare to see the names of individuals.

The five are funds. Investment funds.

They are, at the moment: Vanguard Total Stock Mkt. Index; SPDR S&P 500; Vanguard Institutional Index I; Vanguard 500 Index Inv; Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl.

These funds buy stocks in many, many companies.

These funds don’t say, “Well, we’ll buy Monsanto and Whole Foods stock and then exert massive direct control over Whole Foods and make it bow to Monsanto’s agenda.” No. That’s not how it works.

These funds make automatic purchases of stocks, based on computer calculations and based on the S&P rankings of companies.

These investment funds could be sitting on Mars, and their computers would be running numbers and buying and selling stock in Earth companies with no input from the outside.

Unless…something came up. Unless something big came up. Unless a private and elite word went out that Whole Foods was becoming a threat to some entrenched interest, some vital agenda. For example, some Monsanto agenda.

In that case, one of these big shareholders could cast a proxy vote that would go against the aims or plans of Whole Foods.

One of Vanguard’s investment funds is THE top shareholder of Monsanto, and the fourth largest shareholder of Whole Foods. Here, from Vanguard’s website, is a quote from “Vanguard’s proxy voting guidelines.” Read carefully:

In evaluating proxy proposals, we consider information from many sources, including but not limited to, the investment advisor for the fund, the management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal, and independent proxy research services. We will give substantial weight to the recommendations of the company’s board, absent guidelines or other specific facts that would support a vote against management. In all cases, however, the ultimate decision [on how to vote] rests with the members of the [Vanguard] Committee, who are accountable to the [Vanguard] fund’s Board.”

The key excerpt from this paragraph is: “We will give substantial weight to the recommendation of the company’s board, absent guidelines or other specific facts that would support a vote AGAINST MANAGEMENT.”

Bottom line, in plain English, it goes this way: “We, as an investment fund, hold a huge number of shares of a company (like Whole Foods). If the company is holding a vote on its future plans and policies, we can, if we decide to, weigh in with our huge voting block and go against the wishes of that company. And win.”


The Matrix Revealed


If such a proxy vote came down to favoring the agenda of Monsanto or Whole Foods, and if the situation was crucial enough, who do you think would come out on top? Who would be torpedoed?

Taking this a step further: with Whole Foods’ decision, in January of 1992, to go public, to become a publicly traded company, to sell stock out in the open, it put itself into a world where money talks a language that is no longer simply based on products sold and company profit.

Whole Foods entered a world where billions and trillions of dollars exert influence, where “important people” can “have discussions” with companies and “suggest strategies” and “offer advice” that goes beyond how to run a successful enterprise.

If someone who is tangentially associated with one of Whole Foods’ top shareholders shows up and wants to talk, there are ears ready to listen.

Remember, that top shareholder in Whole Foods is also a top investor in Monsanto. It isn’t hard to figure out which company—Whole Foods or Monsanto—occupies the superior position in that someone’s mind.

The top shareholder in Whole Foods holds a boatload of proxy votes in his back pocket. He can cast them with or against Whole Foods. The possibility is always there.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Email from author of study on Roundup/gluten intolerance

Email from author of study on Roundup/gluten intolerance

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

A few days ago, I reported on a recent study of Roundup, the Monsanto herbicide, and how Roundup is involved in causing gluten intolerance and celiac disease.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/study-monsantos-roundup-causes-gluten-intolerance/

I emailed one of the co-authors of the study, Stephanie Seneff (MIT), and she replied. Her comments are more than interesting:

The complex set of symptoms associated with celiac disease are not well understood. If you take the point of view that the glyphosate [the main ingredient in Roundup] causes both the celiac and all the other symptoms, then everything starts to make sense.

Glyphosate’s disruption of CYP enzymes in the liver is a major contributor. This explains both a deficiency in activated vitamin D (epidemic in this country) and an excess of retinoic acid (leading to infertility problems and teratogenesis). It also explains impaired bile acid production and impaired ability to process fats in the gut. And it also explains system-wide sulfate deficiency which I believe is the key factor behind all modern diseases.

We propose in the paper (based on chemistry) that glyphosate binds to the gluten in wheat and disrupts its ability to be transformed into a much less allergenic form. The body develops an allergic reaction to the strange form of gluten that it encounters (not properly formed and bound to glyphosate) developing the intolerance that characterizes gluten disease. Our proposal has not been proven — as far as I can tell, no one has done the research to show or disprove this hypothesis.


The Matrix Revealed


There have also been essentially no studies to see if there is significant glyphosate residue in food, in water, in blood, in urine. These studies need to be done.

People are mostly unaware that there has been a recent change in agricultural practices whereby wheat, sugar cane, barley, and other common crops are sprayed with glyphosate just before the harvest for desiccation/ripening. This surely means that there’s a lot more residue in the foods derived from these crops than there used to be. Furthermore, the Roundup-Ready core crops of the processed food industry – corn, soy, sugar beets, canola — have caused a massive problem with “roundup-ready” weeds, such that more and more Roundup has to be applied to get the same effect. The increased use of glyphosate on corn and soy correlates extremely well with the rise in incidence of a host of modern diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s, celiac disease, irritable bowel, celiac disease, kidney cancer, kidney failure, hepatitis C, pancreatic cancer, Parkinson’s disease and thyroid cancer.”

I want to make a distinction here. Stephanie Seneff, the co-author of the study, makes a case, in her published paper, that glyphosate is the cause of gluten intolerance and celiac disease. In her subsequent email to me, she proposes an explanation for HOW this causative chain takes place, and readily admits this is a hypothesis. But her hypothesis does not diminish the strength of her published study:

([Interdisciplinary Toxicology, http://www.intertox.sav.sk/, 2013, Vol. 6 (4), 159-184]: “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance”)

(Click here for the .pdf document of the report. See also this link.)

Also, the use of Roundup on food crops before harvest, to “dry and ripen” them, is a vital topic. For example, I just received a note from the UK indicating that farmers use Roundup on potatoes before harvest. The Roundup goes to the tubers, which means people are eating extra herbicide.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup causes “gluten intolerance”

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup causes “gluten intolerance”

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent study proposes that gluten intolerance and celiac disease are on the rise as a result of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

The National Library of Medicine states that celiac disease “damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley, rye, and possibly oats.”

The study authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, have a different view. They point out that this rise in celiac disease parallels the increase in the use of Roundup, and the effects of glyphosate are those listed for celiac disease.

Here is the abstract of their study [Interdisciplinary Toxicology, http://www.intertox.sav.sk/, 2013, Vol. 6 (4), 159-184]: “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance”:

(Click here for the .pdf document of the report. See also this link.)

Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it.

Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression.

It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure, and cancer.

Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic.

Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria.

Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut.

Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements.

Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine, and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosate’s known depletion of these amino acids.

Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure.

Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate.


The Matrix Revealed


Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation [drying] just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.”

This study could change the way gluten intolerance and celiac disease are understood, and it adds to the growing body of evidence against Monsanto’s Roundup and those GMO crops which require Roundup as the herbicide of choice.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com