Food package labels don’t always mean what we think they mean. What is natural or all natural? Is organic 100% organic? What about GMO-free?

The All Natural and Natural Label

The terms “all natural” and “natural” are misleading. A Consumer Reports survey found that the average consumer thinks these terms mean the food does not have artificial ingredients, GMOs, or pesticides, and that artificial materials weren’t used during the processing of the food. Currently, the terms “all natural” and “natural” are not regulated in the United States except for rarely enforced rules within the meat and poultry industries.

To be labeled natural, meat and poultry is supposed to be minimally processed and not have any artificial ingredients; however, the term artificial is not clearly defined and the regulations are not well enforced by the USDA.

Outside of meat and poultry, there are no formal regulations for the use of the terms “all natural” and “natural”. The FDA does have informal guidelines. Products labeled as natural should not contain anything artificial or synthetic, but again, there is no definition of what qualifies as artificial or synthetic. This means that just about anything goes, when it comes to “all natural.” The question to ask is not, “What does all natural mean? ” but rather, “What doesn’t all natural mean?”

Is “Organic” Food Really Organic?

When you think of “organic”, many people think it means 100% organic, pesticide free, all natural, and better than conventional. This is not correct. Organic today means a number of different things, depending on the situation, and many, if not most, items that carry the USDA Organic seal are not 100% organic.

Over the years, big agricultural and food companies have slowly degraded the term organic. By buying up smaller organic companies and lobbying the USDA, they have managed to chip away at the definition of organic foods. As the Cornucopia Institute pointed out, “In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food has gobbled up all but 15 of them.”

Buyouts and mergers of food companies usually do not result in a label change. Conscientious consumers who want to avoid supporting big food companies end up giving their money to them anyway, unless they do some serious research to find out who owns the company. Just looking at the labels on the boxes is not enough.

Origins of the Organic Label

In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act. This law regulated the organic food industry and established standards for what could be considered organic. One positive of the act was the establishment of the National Organic Standards Board. This board was to have fifteen members elected from different parts of the organic foods industry including four organic farmers or growers, three environmentalists or conservationists, three consumer or public interest advocates, two handlers or processors, one retailer, one scientist from a related field (toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry), and one USDA accredited certifying agent. The make-up of the board was supposed to help avoid governmental bureaucratic appointees.

Organic Labeling With Packaged Foods

Packaged foods that carry the USDA Organic seal are certified by the USDA to have at least 95% organic ingredients in them. Any ingredient listed specifically as organic is certified organic. Another category of organic is “made with organic ingredients.” Any packaged food that lists “made with organic” for specific ingredients must have at least 70% organic ingredients. No genetically modified ingredients are allowed in these products or ones with the USDA organic seal. Organic ingredients are to be made without synthetic fertilizers, ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge. The goal for organic production is to use the most natural, environmentally friendly methods as possible. This is not always done in practice.

What Does Organic Mean These Days?

Organic does not mean pesticide free or chemical free. To be certified organic, a farmer must allow a previously non-organic field to be used without synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or GMOs for at least three years. Naturally based pesticides are used regularly. (A list of exempted chemicals is available on the USDA website). Though the USDA claims that these chemicals do not affect or alter the foods we eat, the fact remains that they are in many of our organic foods without our knowledge.

The list of approved pesticides and chemicals has grown over the years. With recent changes at the National Organic Standards Board, it is getting easier and easier for growers and producers to use more chemicals and pesticides in the production of organic foods. For example, Driscoll’s organic strawberries are not really organically produced.

Methyl bromide has been banned from agricultural use, with a few exceptions, due to its association with a rise in prostate cancer in farm workers. Yet, it is one of many chemicals approved for use in organic production by the National Organic Standards Board.

Since strawberries are extremely vulnerable to pests, methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant to sterilize the soil before they are planted. While technically it’s not sprayed directly on the fruit, it can still be detected in the strawberries that are grown in the sterilized soil.

What Chemicals Are Allowed In USDA Organic Certification

Currently, the USDA has the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that lays out which chemicals, pesticides, and other synthetic materials are or are not allowed in organic farming and production. In order for a company or farmer to use a synthetic ingredient in the production of organic foods, they have to petition the National Organic Standards Board for an exemption under what is called the Sunset Provision. This exemption would automatically run out after five years unless renewed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board. This has changed. The rules now state that the exemptions are automatically renewed after five years unless there is a vote to remove the exemption.

These exemptions were initially granted to give an organic food producer time to find a natural alternative to conventional synthetic methods. They were never meant to become a permanent solution. Ever since big food companies have been quietly buying up the smaller organic companies, they have been trying to relax the standards for organics as well. This latest turn of events with the exemption process is another step towards making the organic standards meaningless.

The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances is rather extensive and covers synthetic and non-synthetic materials. Some of these materials have restricted uses that are intended to keep them from contaminating crops though this doesn’t always work in practice. For example, a USDA survey of pesticide use found that 20% of organically grown lettuce had pesticide residue on it.

A major type of pesticide found was spinosad, a pesticide sold by Dow Chemicals. This pesticide comes from a bacteria found in soil. Spinosad, along with pyrethin (which comes from chrysanthemums) and azadirachtin (which comes from the Asian neem tree) are classified as slightly toxic by the EPA. These ingredients are allowed because they come from natural sources. Other restricted ingredients are limited to cleaning irrigation systems or equipment. Acceptable synthetic chemicals for use in the production of organic foods are listed below:

• Alcohols
• Ethanol
• Isopropanol
• Calcium hypochlorite
• Chlorine dioxide
• Sodium hypochlorite
• Copper sulfate
• Hydrogen peroxide
• Ozone gas
• Peracetic acid
• Soap-based algicide/demossers
• Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate
• Newspapers or other recycled papers, without glossy or colored inks
• Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl (PVC))
• Biodegradable biobased mulch film
• Ammonium carbonate
• Aqueous potassium silicate
• Boric acid
• Copper sulfate
• Elemental Sulfur
• Lime sulfure- including calcium polysulfide
• Oils, horticultural-narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils
• Soaps, insecticidal
• Sticky traps/barriers
• Sucrose octanoate esters
• Aqueous potassium silicate
• Coppers, fixed – includes copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride
• Hydrated lime
• Hydrogen peroxide
• Lime sulfur
• Hydrated lime
• Lime sulfur
• Peracetic acid
• Potassium bicarbonate
• Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
• Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
• Aquatic plant extracts
• Humic acids
• Lignin sulfonate
• Magnesium sulfate
• Micronutrients, excepting those made from nitrates or chlorides
• Soluble boron products
• Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt
• Liquid fish products- can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid
• Vitamins B­₁, C, and E
• Sulfurous acid
• Ethylene gas
• Lignin sulfonate
• Sodium silicate
• Inerts of Minimal Concern from EPA List 4
• Inerts of unknown toxicity- from EPA List 3
• Hydrogen chloride

Do Companies Try To Get Away With Stuff?

As the organic industry slowly shrinks, the main players try to get away with more and more. Companies are petitioning to add more synthetic chemicals to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every year. Since the format of getting chemicals on the list has changed, it’s harder to get rid of them once they’re approved. Slowly but surely, companies are doing whatever they can to cut corners and get away with whatever they can in pursuit of profits.

A major lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year against Abbott Laboratories. The recent lawsuit against the manufacturer of Similac Advanced Organic Formula accuses the company of using 26 ingredients in their baby formula, including GM ingredients, that are not allowed in organic foods.

Labels for the Cosmetic Industry

The organic and natural cosmetics industry is not regulated under the USDA Organic Program. As a result, there exists very little regulation and oversight. Some voluntary certification programs have been created, but these are not compulsory. The problem with these voluntary certifications is that the standards vary with each and they’re not regulated by the government like the USDA organic program. Some states, such as California, have implemented laws regulating the organic cosmetic industry.

Under the 2003 California Organic Product Act, any cosmetic sold in California that is promoted as organic must contain at least 70% organically produced ingredients. Consumers have the right to sue cosmetic companies under this Act. As of 2011, 34 cosmetic companies had been sued for false advertising.

Other Organic, Natural, Non GMO Labels

Because of the costs and burdens that are part of the process of pursuing official USDA organic certification, many farmers pursue other options. Alternative certifications are growing in popularity, especially among smaller farmers. Some of the more popular ones include the following:

• Certified Naturally Grown
• Food Alliance Certified
• The Farmer’s Pledge
• Certified Humane
• Animal Welfare Approved
• OWN Association- Organic, Wildcrafted, and Natural
• Ecocert
• Natrue

Certified Naturally Grown, Food Alliance Certified, and Farmer’s Pledge are grass-roots organizations that are direct alternatives to the USDA organic certification yet show that their products are free of pesticides and synthetic materials.

Nearly 500 farmers from 47 states are members of Certified Naturally Grown, a non-profit, alternative, organic certification program. This group strives to preserve high standards for organic farmers while removing the financial and logistical barriers small farmers can face with USDA certification.

Wildcrafted

Wildcrafted plants are uncultivated plants gathered from their natural habitat. Care is taken to ensure sustainability, to take no more than the plant can give, to scatter a plant’s seeds, etc. Wildcrafted is superior to organic if picked where there is no runoff from polluted water or contamination from exhaust. Unlike organic produce, wildcrafted produce is never sprayed—with anything. Wildcrafted foods are pure—as nature intended.

Kosher

Kosher is a certification that ensures foods follow Jewish dietary guidelines. Though opinions may vary among rabbis about what counts as kosher or a kosher environment, a handful of nationally and internationally recognized kosher certifying agencies exist.

Generally, kosher means that both the food and the preparation methods meet certain standards. Kosher certification has nothing to do with whether or not a food is organically grown or is genetically modified. Simply put, kosher certification means the food and its preparation methods followed Jewish dietary laws and nothing more.

Non- GMO

The Non-GMO Project is a program to label products that do not contain genetically modified ingredients. They are the only independent verification organization in North America and their symbol has become well known to those people who choose to avoid GMOs.

The Non-GMO Project uses the European Union measurement to determine if a product qualifies as non-GMO under program standards. If a product is found to contain 0.9% or less of genetically modified ingredients, then it is certified as non-GMO.

Conclusion

The various labels, while giving consumers some amount of assurance as to the quality of the product they purchase, are confusing. The only way to truly know the quality of the food you consume is to get to know your food growers at local farmers markets, or better yet, to grow your own food.

Sources:

• A Dirty Little Secret: Your “Organic” Strawberries Aren’t Organic – Living Traditionally
• Certified Naturally Grown – Organic Producer Magazine
• Farming With Organic Certification – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• Lawsuit Alleges Organic Infant Formula Contains Non-Organic Ingredients – Food Manufacturing
• Natural and Organic Cosmetics – Ecocert Group
• Natural Consumer Products Found Contaminated – Morocco Method Int’l
• Organic, All Natural, and Certified Naturally Grown Food Labels – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• ‘Organic’ alternatives: Many small, direct-sale farmers forego expense of USDA certification – The Columbian
• Organic Certification of Cosmetics – MakingCosmetics
• Organic Pesticides: Not an Oxymoron – NPR
• The National List Of Allowed and Prohibited Substances – U.S. Government Publishing Office
• The “Non-GMO Project Verified” Seal – NON GMO Project
• The USDA’s Organic Deception – Farm Wars
• Thirty Four Cosmetic Companies Sued Over “Organic” Labels – FDA Law Blog
• Understand Our Natural Resources – OWN Association
• USDA Guts Organic Standards – Food Renegade
• What Does “Natural” Mean?  – Mother Jones
• What’s Required to Label Products “Kosher?”  – The Nibble
• Who Owns Organic – Cornucopia Institute
• Who We Are – NATRUE
• Who Will Enforce the Organic Foods Production Act? – Organic Consumers
• Why We’re Not Certified Organic (We Think It’s a Good Thing…) – Annmarie Gianni Skin Care
• Wildcrafting: A “simple” life fraught with a host of complex ethical and practical considerations – Rodale Institute

(The Free Though Project.com) Washington, D.C. – Congress is considering a bill that would make it illegal for states to require GMO labeling. It would negate the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a national GMO labeling standard and specifically allow for the labeling of products as “natural,” even when containing GMOs.

But perhaps the most disturbing part of the bill is the fact that it would make it illegal for counties and states to place any restrictions on the planting of GMO crops.

The ominous bill, H.R. 1599, ironically called the Safe Food and Accurate Food Labeling Act (commonly referred to as the DARK Act – the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act), was recently passed by subcommittee and now moves on to a full vote on the House floor.

The ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), has expressed confidence that the bill will pass in the House. Supporters, such as Peterson, emphatically tout the safety of GMO products, claiming that no scientific experts have proven any legitimate safety concerns; a widely disputed position.

“Consumers increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is produced. I think H.R. 1599 satisfies that demand while also recognizing what we know about the safety of the foods that our farmers produce. The bill is a workable solution that will alleviate the potential mess of 50 states with 50 different labeling schemes,” Peterson said.

A huge portion of America’s food contain GMOs, with estimates that as much as 80 percent of packaged foods in grocery stores contains GMO ingredients, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes GMO labeling.

A number of politicians and groups, such as the Center for Food Safety and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), have strongly come out against the bill.

“Americans have the right to know what’s in food and how it was grown — the same as citizens of 64 other nations that require GMO labeling,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president of government affairs. “It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that right and stand for GMO labeling.”

There is currently no companion legislation in the Senate, but if the bill passes the House similar legislation is expected to be introduced.

Currently, the states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington have restrictions in place on the placement of planting of GMO crops. Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed laws requiring GMO labeling.

The planting restrictions are in place to control for the risk of organic farms being contaminated by GMOs, as drift and pollen carried via bee can spread to the organic farms.

Regardless of what you think about the health and safety of GMOs, it is not disputed that Monsanto uses them to predatorily attack farmers. Monsanto has a team of “inspectors” who roam the country looking for their seeds in unauthorized locations.

Farmers don’t even know that this Monsanto GMO is growing in their fields, as it has blown in from a nearby farm, or from a passing truck. However, Monsanto will then sue them for infringing on their patented seed because it is growing in their fields.

This contamination is so widely spread that it is estimated that most organic corn in the U.S. typically contains anywhere from half a percent to 2 percent GMOs, according to companies that sell such corn to organic dairies or poultry farmers.

For organic farmers, the prospect of losing their organic certification has dark implications. Not only would it inevitably drive them out of business due to not being able to sell their products as organic, but this could systematically drive organic farming as whole to the brink of extinction.

Each local jurisdiction has specific sets of issues which need to be addressed when contemplating GMOs. Crafting blanket laws to protect big business interests is contrary to the idea of allowing people to decide what they feel is in their own best interest.

Whether in favor of labeling or not, politicians have shown a blatant disregard for the people whom they claim to represent by attempting to usurp their ability to make these important choices on a state and local level.

The DARK Act is a dangerous piece of legislation, which serves as a blatant example of how the collusion of power and money, in the form of a major lobby and their political cronies, can serve to take away liberty from the American people.

How can anyone claim that not allowing people the ability to know what is in their food, if they choose to know, is somehow a good thing? Outlawing the people of states and counties from deciding what is right for them reeks of oppressive tyranny.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• GMO Science – Understanding How GMOs Are Created, and What Prominent Scientists Are Saying
• Foods That Are GMO

Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has been published on BenSwann’s Truth in Media, Chris Hedges’ truth-out, AlterNet and many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.

There has been a debate raging about GMOs for a long time now. On one side of the debate is the idea that genetic engineering is progress for humanity, a natural extension of more traditional breeding techniques. The other side believes genetically modified foods are unsafe for human consumption and harmful to the environment.

Biotech companies claim that genetic modification yields more precise control over artificial selection. Studies funded by the industry consistently demonstrate safety, but only over the short term. For years, Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and other biotech based agricultural companies have told the public that there is nothing to worry about. Genetic modification will be the technology that will improve food in every conceivable way. Food will be more nutritious. Crops will be more vigorous, more disease resistant, etc. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating GMO safety. Scrutiny reveals these short-term studies are funded by or performed by the industry itself.

As more independent scientists complete long-term studies, a very different picture has emerged about the safety of GMOs and their many other drawbacks. When these studies are not funded by industry, the results show us an uncontrollable, uncontainable, and dangerous technology with serious health hazards.

Seralini’s Research Broke New Ground

One of the first studies to ring the alarm was a 2-year, long-term chronic toxicity study. Don’t believe the hype churned out by biotech that criticizes the Seralini study until you take the time to look into the defense of their methods. The Seralini study was actually a well-designed and well-conducted study. If we are to accept the argument that Séralini’s study does not provide substantial evidence that genetically modified food is dangerous, then we must also conclude that the short-term toxicity studies funded by the agriculture industry (primarily Monsanto) on GM foods cannot prove that they are safe. They are in fact the same type of study, conducted the same way,  even using the same type of rats. The only significant difference was the duration of the study. Seralini’s study showed how the previous 90-day studies are misleading as 90 days is not long enough to test for long-term effects like organ damage, cancer, and premature death. The first tumors appeared in the rats after four months. This study was able to distinguish the effects of GM food from GM food grown with allotted pesticides. The results provide strong evidence supporting the claim that genetically modified food, especially genetically modified food grown with Roundup, is highly toxic and unfit for animal or human consumption.

New Studies on GMOs

There are other studies showing that GMOs are even worse than what was originally feared. Dr. Kruger’s research shows how chronically ill people have higher glyphosate levels than healthy people. Dr. Swanson has linked glyphosate use with America’s deteriorating health. Dr. Young’s work showed how Roundup, at surprisingly low amounts, is an endocrine disruptor in human cells. It doesn’t take much Roundup to disrupt hormones; the levels of Roundup allowed in municipal drinking water is enough to cause harm. There are many other studies that are showing other problems with GMOs. Independent science is coming to a different conclusion than industry-funded science. That doesn’t seem all that surprising though, does it?

Even Short-Term Studies (When Independently Done) are Demonstrating Real Safety Issues with GMOs

Dr. Oraby fed rats a diet of GM soy and GM corn for 1-3 months. Despite the short duration of the study, the study ended with a surprising number of dead and unhealthy rats, except of course the control group of rats who weren’t fed GMO food. The damage done to these rats from short-term GMO consumption was staggering. This study showed a wide range of toxic effects, including DNA damage, abnormal sperm, blood changes, and damage to the liver, the kidneys and testes – irrefutable evidence that GM foods are hazardous to health.

Most Americans have been eating GMOs for a lot longer than three months. The only reason we’re not all dead is because GM foods are not the only food  we eat. If 100% of all of our foods were genetically modified, our overall health as a nation would be even worse. As a nation, the U.S. is in very poor health, and we have every reason to believe that genetically modified foods are a big part of the problem.

A Controlled Dialog

For years, biotech has tried to frame the argument for genetic modification as one between the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable. In their efforts to change their image, they have even managed to recruit to aid of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson to advocate for the science of genetic engineering. Bill and Neil portray the critics of GMO technology as superstitious and ignorant. They respond to the criticisms of GMO technology as if they were addressing irrational fears. When Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson talk GMOs, they make all manner of bold pronouncements declaring GMOs safe and wonderful.

It would be nice to believe that Bill Nye The Science Guy and Neil deGrasse Tyson would never accept money from biotech to promote GM technology, but Monsanto is a master of lobbying and payoffs. It would have been good for business to buy off Bill and Neil. Thankfully, not every scientist is for sale.

By never addressing the evidence provided by long-term studies, independent studies, or the concerns of numerous prominent scientists, biotech furthers the misconception that they are those in the know and everyone else is misinformed. In truth, the science isn’t all that complicated. Anyone can come to understand GMOs well enough to become informed.

The public sees both Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson as spokesmen for science. Unfortunately, neither of them are as broadly trained in science as most people think. They speak on a wide variety of scientific topics, so they give the impression that they just about know it all. In truth, there has not been anyone knowledgeable enough to fill Carl Sagan’s shoes since his death, though Bill and Neil have certainly tried. They give the impression of being knowledgeable in all fields of science, as their mentor Carl Sagan actually was. (Carl Sagan was adamantly opposed to genetic engineering and he had advanced training in biology). Science needs a spokesperson who’s not for sale.

95% of the American Public and Many Scientists Want GMO Foods Labeled

This is not a debate of irrational fears versus a pragmatic technology. This is an argument among scientists and governments. There are those scientists who are employed by the U.S. government and biotech, and then there’s just about everyone else. On the issue of GMO labeling, most of us are in agreement. Many countries all over the world ban the cultivation of GMOs, and many countries mandate that GMOs be labeled. The debate went global a long time ago. While the rest of the world bans GMOs, Americans have been unsuccessful in just getting GM foods labeled.

Scientists have been speaking out against GMOs for some time now. For years they have been pointing out GMO failures in yield, toxicity, safety, and containment. Recently the World Health Organization named Roundup a carcinogen. One of the most common genetic modifications is the modification making crops Roundup ready and immune to the Roundup herbicide. In light of the health concerns raised by skeptical scientists, you would think that the U.S. would be scaling back on its use of Roundup and other suspected or known toxic chemicals in agriculture. Instead of scaling back on the use of pesticides, these kinds of chemicals are being used more widely.

Before the harvest of conventional oats, wheat, and other crops, Roundup is often applied in large amounts, dramatically increasing the American consumers’ exposure to this  carcinogen. The U.S. government has now approved the use of Agent Orange ready (24-D) soy and corn. No one should consume these chemicals in their food, yet the government says it’s okay. Common sense says otherwise. If common sense fails some of us, there is plenty of evidence and hundreds of experts to fall back on.

Scientists All Over the World Have Called For a Moratorium on All Genetic Engineering

Scientists such as Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA and 814 other scientists have written an open letter to governments and international forums. These prominent scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards that GMOs pose to biodiversity and food safety. They are “extremely concerned” about the risks GMOs pose to human health and animal health. Experts all over the world are saying it’s time to change our agricultural practices.

Patents are meant to protect property rights, but the patents on genetically modified foods have been used to take farmers’ lands away from their rightful owners. Instead of protecting the freedom to own property, these patents are eroding the rights of property owners.

GM pollen from GM crops can travel miles. It is commonplace for birds, insects, and weather to carry GM pollen and seeds. Animals and natural processes can spread patented genes onto other farms. When this happens, hapless farmers are sued, and contrary to all common sense, they are the ones who usually lose in court.

GM crops cross-pollinate with other crops so voraciously that we can’t seem to get rid of some unapproved GM varieties. Genetically modified wheat keeps popping up in farmers’ fields across the country though it was ordered to be completely destroyed 14 years ago, way back in 2001.

The current techniques used to genetically modify foods are unreliable, uncontrollable, and unpredictable. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of unwanted mutations result from genetic engineering. These can result in new allergens or toxins, and even new viruses. This makes sense when you consider that GMO foods are made to either be immune to poison or to create their own poisons or both. Traditional breeding techniques are simply more controllable and predictable.

This is an argument made by thousands of farmers and scientists.

These Are Just Some of the Reasons GM Foods Should Not Qualify as Inventions

GM crops are neither necessary nor beneficial to agriculture. There have been many failures of genetically modified crops. Now that independent research is being done on GM crops, the picture of a failed technology emerges from the research.

• Genetically modified crops have produced inferior yields when compared to their unmodified counterparts.
• GM crops have been shown to have poor disease resistance.
• GM crops engineered to contain BT toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees, lacewings, swallowtails, and monarch butterflies. (Monsanto claims they are concerned about this, but so far greenwashing has been their only response).
• Glufosinate causes birth defects in mammals.
• Fruit abortion (a failure of fruit production) is a problem.
• Glyphosate has been linked to cancer.
• Farmers are experiencing poor financial returns.
• GMOs violate farmers rights.
• GMOs violate human rights and basic human dignity. (The right to know and control what we put into our bodies is a basic and fundamental human right).

The 815 scientists who wrote their open letter to the world are calling for support for research and development of non-corporate sustainable agriculture. Much of this invaluable research has already been done. Bill Mollison and David Holmgren have developed sustainable, non-corporate organic agriculture. They can farm anywhere and their yields are amazing. Their techniques are called permaculture, which means permanent culture. If agriculture does not become sustainable, it will not last, and we will not survive.

Profitable and Sustainable Are Not Always the Same Thing

The biotech industry would have the public believe that they are improving upon life through genetic modification and doing it sustainably. We are told that the benefits outweigh any risks, or even less believable, that genetic engineering is a risk-free technology.

When put into practice, the benefits accrue to Big Agriculture while the costs are paid for by the consumer and society in the form of higher prices, toxic food, and environmental degradation.

The costs of genetically modifying food is also paid by farmers. They face the threat of GMO contamination, pesticide runoff, soil degradation, and higher seed prices. In a successful attempt to manipulate the market, biotech corporations have been buying seed companies for some time. This enables biotech companies to make non-genetically modified seeds more expensive, and harder to obtain after they genetically modify a particular crop such as corn. Non GMO corn seed became much more expensive in North America after Monsanto produced GM corn seed. Even though this is a violation of our antitrust laws, biotech companies are still getting away with it. The same thing is happening in Spain. After allowing GMO cultivation, the variety of maize available to Spanish farmers has declined dramatically. Rising corn prices are sure to follow.

In a successful attempt to manipulate the market, biotech corporations have been buying up seed companies for some time, as the government looks the other way, ignoring anti-trust concerns. As these giant companies monopolize the marketplace, they are able to raise seed prices for both GM and non-GM seeds. When they produce a new GM crop, the seeds for the same non-GM crop become more expensive and harder to obtain. For example,  non-GM corn seed became much more expensive in North America after Monsanto produced GM corn seed. The same thing is happening in Spain. After allowing GMO cultivation, the variety of maize available to Spanish farmers declined dramatically. Rising corn prices are sure to follow.

Genetic engineering is not what Big Agriculture claims it is, and it will never do what they claim it will.

What are Believable Coincidences and What are Unbelievable Coincidences?

Health problems are rising along with with increased GMO consumption. Many will argue that is a coincidence, but a firm belief in coincidence is what biotech has been counting on since the technology was released to the public.

There are no labels, which mean no liability and no traceability. That’s only a part of their protection. You can’t sue Monsanto for harm caused from their products. They enjoy special legal protection that they lobbied and paid big money for. (That’s right American politicians are for sale, or didn’t you know?) These legal protections could be taken away from them if more of us would question these coincidences and investigate these correlations.

It will take an overwhelming majority of us demanding change in order for change to happen. The Vietnam War ended under the intense sustained pressure of the American people. That wasn’t what the military industrial complex wanted – so it was an uphill battle. This will be an uphill battle as well.

Further Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• How to Avoid GMOs
• The Difference Between Heirlooms, Hybrids, and GMOs
• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Sources:

• Soil, Papered Over – Seed Freedom
• Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – ISIS Institute of Science in Society
• GMO Seralini – Top 10 Things You Need To Know About The Seralini Study
• GMO Evidence
• GMOs Proven Harmful To Human Health

For most of the history of mankind, we lived in close contact with the Earth. The majority of our diet consisted of foods and water that had soil clinging to it.  This soil was not an inert substance; it was a dynamic mineral rich, probiotic infused source of electrochemical energy.  The unique, soil-based probiotic, bacillus subtilis, was one of the key components that gave the soil its powerful nutritional benefits.

Humans are the only species on the planet that does not intentionally consume soil.  Our ancestors always had soil in their diet through picking produce out of the ground and drinking from lakes, rivers, and streams.  Many original doctors and medicine men used dirt in their various healing concoctions. Today, we intentionally attempt to sterilize our food and avoid the consumption of soil.

Bacillus Subtilis and Our Immune System

Bacillus subtilis is an ubiquitous bacterium that is commonly found in water, soil, air, and decomposing plant residue.  This bacterium is called a human soil organism (HSO) and has an extraordinary ability to survive harsh environments.  It produces an endospore that allows it to endure extreme conditions of heat, dryness, humidity, and acidity in the environment.

B subtilis is fully resistant to bile salts and can handle the harsh stomach acid environment, which allows it to get into the digestive system and colonize.  It has beneficial effects in the digestive system. ^1,2,3  Research has revealed that supplemental B subtilis improves symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. ⁴

B subtilis is able to suppress the growth of harmful pathogens, strengthen the mucosal biofilm, and enhance the growth of other good probiotic strains such as lactobacillus species in the gut microflora. ^5,6

Soil Based Organisms and Our Innate Immunity

As our ancestors were exposed to trillions of organisms every day through their dirt consumption, they were strengthening their microbiome and their immune system.  They were exposed to many different pathogenic organisms to which their immune system learned how to adapt and destroy.

If the pathogenic load was too strong, the individual would get sick and sometimes they would die.  This was obviously tragic and was a leading cause of death.  However, those who didn’t die often had robust immune systems that were well-adapted to the harsh pathogens around them.

Modern Technology and Improving Immunity

With modern technology, we are not exposed to these natural microbes.  The use of our technology can reduce the pathogenic load we are exposed to in order to prevent sickness and infectious fatalities, meanwhile, providing the proper stimulation to our immune system.

One such way to gain these benefits is the inclusion of human soil organisms in our natural diet.  This would include growing much of our own food in gardens and consuming it right out of the ground with little cleaning.  We could also drink water from clean rivers, lakes, springs, and streams. (Editor’s note: If we could find clean sources. Most are contaminated with giardia and other parasites as well as pollutants.)

Finally, one can use naturally fermented foods and supplement with probiotics containing HSO’s such as bacillus subtilis.  Most probiotics on the market only contain the lactobacillus and bifido bacterium species.  These are fantastic for the health of the small and large intestine, but some individuals struggle with a sensitivity to these microorganisms.

It is wise to find a probiotic supplement with HSO’s such as bacillus subtilis, which is hyposensitive and easy for most individuals to tolerate.

Sources:

1. Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of Bacillus subtilis (natto), catalase, or subtilisin – Pub Med
2. Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of Bacillus subtilis (natto), catalase, or subtilisin – Pub Med
3. Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis strains as probiotics and their potential as a food ingredient. – Pub Med
4. Effect of Bacillus subtilis PB6, a natural probiotic on colon mucosal inflammation and plasma cytokines levels in inflammatory bowel disease. – Pub Med
5. Sticking together: building a biofilm the Bacillus subtilis way – Pub Med
6. Soil Organisms: Bacillus Subtilis – Organic Fitness

Eggs are among the most nutritious foods on the planet.  A whole egg contains all the nutrients required to turn a single cell into a baby chicken.  Pasture-raised eggs are one of the richest sources of bioactive nutrients that enhance hormone function, reduce inflammation, improve fat-burning, and enhance brain function.

Chickens are designed to naturally graze on grass, weeds, worms, and insects.  When they are able to do this, they bioaccumulate omega-3 fatty acids, carotenoid antioxidants and major minerals like magnesium.

It is a great idea to consume pasture-raised, organic eggs. Unless you have an immune sensitivity to them (lab test) or feel tired, have to clear your throat, feel inflamed, etc. than you want to have these as a staple item in your diet.

Eggs Are a Dense Source of Bioactive Compounds

Eggs provide nutrients that help to prevent human health degeneration. One study released in 2005 provided that eggs contain 18 vitamins and minerals, some of which are commonly deficient in the western diet.  Carrots seem to get all the credit for its carotenoid content, but this pigment also gives yolk its yellow/orange color.

Carotenoids have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that play a role in the central nervous system and are responsible for eye and vision wellness. Carotenoids are required for vitamin A production, assist in neural retina function, and provide protective macular pigment (responsible for field of vision in the center of the eye). Lack of this key nutrient is linked to macular degeneration and cataract formation.  A study published by the Journal of Alzheimers Disease released in 2014 states that a link exists in carotenoid intake and cognitive function observed by Alzheimer’s patients.^1-4

Lutein and Zeaxanthin

Lutein and zeaxanthin are two types of carotenoids and are an essential dietary component because the body’s tissue does not synthesize these compounds on its own. Specifically, aside from being found in the yolk of eggs, lutein and zeaxanthin are naturally occurring in dark leafy greens.

Providing more reason to not limit egg consumption to egg whites, egg yolk is a source of lecithin, choline, and phosvitin. Lecithin provides cellular support and aids in the secretion of bile, which inhibits the buildup of stones in the bladder. Among metabolism promoting factors, choline is essential for brain development. The choline content alone in egg yolks is one reason why pregnant women supplement their diet with eggs. Phosvitin is a protein that chelates iron ions, or in other words behaves as an antioxidant in the removal of metals, and assists in detoxifying the body. Specifically, phosvitin aids in inhibiting excessive melanin synthesis in skin.^{3, 5}

The choline content alone in egg yolks is one reason why pregnant women supplement their diet with eggs. Phosvitin is a protein that chelates iron ions, or in other words behaves as an antioxidant in the removal of metals, and assists in detoxifying the body. Specifically, phosvitin aids in inhibiting excessive melanin synthesis in skin.^{3, 5}

Eggs Are a Nutritive Powerhouse

Eggs provide a valuable source of protein, especially for individuals with gout because it does not contain purine (3). One entire large egg contains 6 grams of high-quality protein and is a good source of protein for vegetarians.⁶

Mostly found in the yolk, biotin is a B-complex vitamin that contributes to metabolic pathways by serving as a transport mechanism for vitamins and minerals into eggs during development and makes eggs an excellent source of this nutrient. Also responsible for the vitamin and mineral transportation, riboflavin and iron are two other nutrients found in trace amounts in both egg whites and egg yolks.⁷

Sources:

1. Nolan JM, et al. Macular pigment, visual function, and macular disease among subjects with Alzheimer’s disease: an exploratory study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014 Jul;42(4):1191-202. PMID: 2502431
2. Shapira N. Not All Eggs Are Created Equal: The Effect on Health Depends on the Composition. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2011 Mar-Apr;27(2):264. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2010.11.01
3. Miranda JM, et al. Egg and Egg-Derived Foods: Effects on Human Health and Use as Functional Foods. Nutrients. 2015 Jan;7(1):706-729. DOI: 3390/nu7010706
4. A 2010 Report and Scorecard by The Cornucopia Institute: Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture  Link Here
5. Iishikawa S, et al. Egg Yolk Phosvitin Inhibits Hydroxyl Radical Formation from the Fenton Reaction. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. 2004 May; 68(6): 1324-1331. DOI: 1271/bbb.68.1324
6.  Berkeley Wellness: The Sunny Side of Eggs
7. White HB, et al. Biotin-binding protein from chicken egg yolk. Assay and relationship to egg-white avidin. Biochem J. 1976 Aug;157(2):395-400. PMCID: 1163865

GMO foods are very common in American and Canadian diets. Not because people choose to eat GMOs, but because they are unaware of how pervasive GMO ingredients have become in processed foods. Biotech companies have been very successful in lobbying to prevent labeling. There are no requirements to label GMO foods, despite concerted efforts by consumer groups.

Unnatural Isn’t Always Bad

As a general rule, the more natural and unadulterated a food, the better it is for you. Selective breeding is an exception to this rule. Selective breeding, or artificial selection, is the process of interbreeding plants to enhance positive qualities and eliminate or diminish negative qualities. Some cultivars are much better for our health than the original. For example, wild almonds contain amygdalin, a substance that is converted to cyanide in the body. Sweet almonds are the domesticated cultivar. Though they are less “natural,” they are better for you than their wild counterparts. Selective breeding is the good kind of unnatural.

But It Usually Is

The bad kind of unnatural is almost everything else that is being done to our food, including the majority of practices adopted by modern agriculture. Chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, concentrated animal feed operations, grain fed meats (vs grass fed), pasteurized foods, irradiated foods…the list goes on and on. Genetically modifying our foods is the latest insult to our food supply, and it is as unnatural as it gets.

One of the most common types of genetic modifications is to modify a crop so that it can withstand unlimited Roundup applications. This enables farmers to spray their whole fields with Roundup, killing the weeds while sparing their crops. Of course by this process, we end up with foods that have been soaked in herbicide. But this is not the only way that your food could be doused with Roundup.

Round Up Sprayed Just Prior to Harvest

Wheat, sugar cane, and other crops are often routinely treated with Roundup just prior to harvest. Of course some of this pesticide is making its way into our food. The Non-GMO project allows this practice. Non-GMO only means a food is not genetically modified. It could still be treated with all kinds of pesticides.

Recently, the World Health Organization released a report stating that the world’s most widely used herbicide, Monsanto’s Roundup, probably causes cancer.

What is a Genetically Engineered Food?

GMOs are made from combing genes from two or more unrelated species into one organism. The two most common types of genetic modifications are modifying crops to produce pesticides or modifying them to be immune to herbicides (making them Roundup ready). Sugar beets have been modified to be Roundup ready. Both kinds of genetic modifications have been done to corn and soy in the same seed.

What’s so bad about them?

GMOs have not undergone long-term studies. When biotech claims GMOs have been tested thousands of times, they’re referring to 90-day studies or studies done for less than two years that have been funded by the industry.

There have been several studies linking GMOs to numerous health problems. The most common problems associated with long-term GMO consumption are kidney and liver damage, faulty insulin regulation, accelerated aging, cancer, and infertility. To look at the results of these studies, please see the link below.

How to avoid GM Food

When asked, more than half of all consumers say they avoid eating GMOs. Sadly this isn’t the case at all. Consumers probably would if they were labeled. Over 90% of Americans and Canadians eat GMOs on a regular basis. If more of us knew what was genetically modified, we wouldn’t eat these foods, and Monsanto and other businesses would be forced to find another way to make money.

Buying organic is the easiest way to avoid GMOs, and when you buy organic you also avoid pesticides and other chemical additives. Non-GMO project verified is a safe bet that the food is free of GMOs, but other toxins from conventional methods of agriculture are a given if the food is not organic.

The eight most common GMO crops are corn, soybeans, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, papaya, zucchini, and squash. Unfortunately, hundreds of other genetically modified foods are in development. It is only a matter of time before GMOs become much harder to avoid.

GMOs are almost always in processed foods. Soy, high fructose corn syrup (now also called fructose) or sugar from sugar beets are found in almost every processed food. Over 90% of soy, corn and sugar beets grown in the U.S. have been genetically modified. If you see these ingredients in your food, you can bet it has been genetically modified.

You have to Avoid GMOs to Detox from GMOs

Of course you can’t keep eating GMOs if you wish to fully detox from them. This means no restaurants (unless you eat at organic restaurants, which are very hard to find), and no processed foods, unless they are organic, or Non-GMO project verified.

Why Detox Genetically Modified Organisms?

Detoxification is defined as the removal of toxic substances from the body. This is often an emphasis of alternative medicine. The benefits of removing toxins from the body are numerous, too many to list in their entirety. Some of the better-known benefits are increased energy, improved sleep, weight loss, and lowered risk of diseases, such as colds, flu, and cancer.

How to Detoxify GMOs

In order to detox from GMOs, you’ll need to eat a diet rich in produce with lots of raw foods and sulfuric vegetables. A high fiber diet is essential. Drinking lots of clean water, and getting lots of exercise aids our bodies in detoxification. Salads and smoothies are staples of a detox diet. Detoxifying genetically modified organisms takes time, a clean diet, lots of clean water, and a healthy digestive tract with a strong and healthy ecosystem of beneficial flora. Speed up the process by eating large salads (recipe), killing candida and healing the gut, drinking lots of cranberry lemonade (recipe), and using a clean and pure nutrition formula with spirulina and chlorella (recipe).

Recommended Supplements:

• Formula SF722 (Kill fungi that inhabits unhealthy gut)
• Floramend-Prime by Thorne (Feed beneficial bacteria that GMOs killed)
• Total Nutrition Formula (Pull toxins out of the body, and multi-vitamin/mineral)
• Shillington’s Intestinal Cleanse (Clean and heal intestinal tract, kill bad guys)
• Shillington’s Intestinal Detox (Heal and pull toxins out of intestinal tract)
• Systemic Enzymes – (For eliminating damage which is fibrin buildup, and they eliminate foreign proteins and many chemicals – this can aid the body in eliminating toxins).

Further Reading:

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• GMO Facts and Arguments
• GMO Science
• How to Avoid GMOs
• The Difference Between Heirlooms, Hybrids, and GMOs

Sources:

• Bitter Almonds vs. Non Bitter – E How
• IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides – International Agency for Research on Cancer WHO
• WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient to Cancer Risk – NBC News
• GMO Dangers – Institute for Responsible Technology

There is a purpose to activism. It is a means to educate, to communicate grievances, and to effect social change. But the activism of late seems to fall short of  lofty goals. What did Occupy Wallstreet and its knockoff occupy protests across the country achieve? Did we learn anything other than the phrase, “We are the 99% ?” We already knew our banks and corporations are corrupt.

There was, however, an occupy movement that began on Earth Day, April 22, 2012, that did make a difference. They called themselves Occupy 2.0.

For 80 years, the University of California, Berkley managed land called the Gill Tract, acres gifted to the university, as a public trust. This prime farmland was mostly used for agricultural research. But in 2012, the university revealed their plans to sell the land to be used for housing and retail.

On Earth Day, 200 urban farmers descended on the property with 15,000 seedlings, tools for planting, and tents to set up camp to protect and nurture the newly claimed community garden.  Their occupation, protest, confrontations with police, meetings with campus officials, help and support from the neighborhood, and their final outcome were all recorded on film by director Todd Darling whose documentary chronicles the event from start to finish.Occupy the Farm is an engaging film that uplifts the soul and inspires the closet rebel. It is a tribute to non-violent protest and community activism.

Occupy the Farm is an engaging film that uplifts the soul and inspires the closet rebel to break out and support a worthy cause. It is a tribute to non-violent protest and community activism – a must see film.

Check the website for updates and additional information:

occupythefarmfilm.com

April 14: Santa Barbara, CA

Pollock Theater, 7 PM
Ocean Road, UCSB
carseywolf.ucsb.edu
Q&A to follow screening with filmmaker Todd Darling and Effie Rawlings of Occupy The Farm.

April 18: Hollywood, FL

Cinema Paradiso, 1pm matinee
2008 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33019

April 19: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Cinema Paradiso, 1pm matinee
503 SE 6^th St,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 525-3456

 April 20-23: Eugene, OR

Including Earth Day!

Bijou Art Cinema, 7 PM  Speakers nightly.
492 East 13^th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401

April 21-­‐22: San Francisco, CA   including Earth Day!

Roxie Theater
3117 16th Street, San Francisco, CA in the Mission District
Q&A to follow 7 pm screenings
roxie.com

April 22 –   Earth Day! St. Augustine FL

Corazon Theater, 7 PM
36 Granada St, St Augustine, FL 32084 (904) 679-­‐5736 corazoncinemaandcafe.com