One of the biggest controversies surrounding food in recent years is the entry of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into our food system. If you don’t know about GMOs by now, here’s the concept in a nutshell: Genetically modified foods have had their DNA changed through genetic engineering, using advanced techniques to insert foreign genes (from such varied sources as bacteria and viruses) in order to enhance or change certain characteristics of the organism. The most common modified foods are derived from plants such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton, but the list of GMOs also includes hormones given to dairy cattle (rbGH). Now even the animals themselves are being genetically engineered.

Supporters of genetic engineering say that modification of organisms on a genetic level is safe, and is similar to how conventional plant breeding has taken place for thousands of years. They also state that in order to gain efficiency in food production to feed the world, GM foods are necessary. The producers of these GMOs maintain that they are as safe as any other food, and have no negative effect on the people consuming them or the environment.

Critics of GMOs (including me) point out that no true trials or testing have been undertaken in order to prove the safety of these foods. In fact, adverse effects from consuming GMOs have been recorded, and because it’s such a new practice, the full results of releasing these unnatural organisms into the environment still remain to be seen. Since science can measure only what it targets, and the sheer number of variables in our natural environment is enormous, the possibility is great that many unintended consequences will occur through the use and consumption of GMOs.

Unfortunately, due to the prevalence of GMOs and the intermingling of foods in our food system during harvest, storage, and processing, most U.S. consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for years. Even those of us who focus on eating all organic probably have been ingesting these foods if we eat out or dine at someone’s house who isn’t as strict as we are with their food purchases. Some 60 to 70% of the products in a grocery store contain some type of genetically engineered ingredient, with the biggest offenders being soy, corn, canola oil, and cottonseed oil.

So why do companies like Monsanto (the world leader in genetic modification) pursue genetic engineering?

One claimed benefit is that using GM seeds increases crop yields and decreases the use of pesticides and herbicides for food production (hence the claim that GMOs will help feed the world). However, contrary to the information coming from the supporters of genetic engineering, studies have shown that just as many pesticides and herbicides are being applied to GM crops as non-GM crops, and in some cases at even higher quantities. For crops modified to be resistant to herbicides, farmers can spray even heavier without damaging the plants, leading to increased use of herbicides worldwide. These herbicides end up in our groundwater, and may also be present in food even after harvest and processing. A recent study sponsored by the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), published in Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, found that Roundup (glyphosate) diluted 105 times was toxic to three different human cell types. This level is significantly lower than the currently accepted residue levels. What this means is that every bite of GM food (modified to be tolerant of glyphosate application) will also have toxic residues which may be detrimental to your health.

Another reason given is the possible increase in nutrition from genetic modification (a higher vitamin content, such as vitamin A in so-called Golden Rice). Yet another is the production of pharmaceuticals from GM crops, which is touted as being able to increase the global availability of medicines and vaccines. Still another reason is the production of substances like spider silk in mass quantities (from genetically modified goats that can produce the silk protein in their Pesticides and GMOs milk).

The four major GM crops – soy, corn, canola, and cotton – are engineered to survive the applications of herbicides at levels which would otherwise kill the plants. Almost 70% of GM crops are engineered to be herbicide tolerant. Another trait of GM crops is a pesticide produced within the plant itself (Bt, or Bacillus thuringienses) in GM corn and cotton. Proponents claim that Bt is harmless, and is a natural bacteria, but some studies have shown an allergic reaction, a high immune response, and even damaged intestines.

If you aren’t OK with all of that, then you need to learn how to avoid GMOs in the food you buy. The best way to avoid them is to buy 100% certified organic food always (check the PLU number on the produce). Organic produce has a 5 digit PLU number, beginning with 9. Conventionally grown produce has a 4 digit PLU number. In theory, all GM produce has a 5 digit PLU number beginning with 8, but the critics say that because labeling is optional, not all GM produce will be labeled as such. If you eat meat, buy 100% grass-fed (pastured) beef and go for the certified organic meats. If you read labels carefully, you will find foods that have been labeled non-GMO or GMO-free. If it isn’t labeled as such, and the product contains non-organic soybeans, corn, canola, cottonseed oil, or dairy, you’re probably getting GM varieties in there.

For more info, be sure to bookmark Seeds of Deception and the Organic Consumers Association GM page.

I avoid GM food, and I wouldn’t feed it to my friends or family either. I highly recommend you become a careful label reader and keep it out of your diet as well.

Well, it’s getting to be that time of day (night 🙂 when I get to feeling I’ve had enough fun for one day and should be heading towards the ole sack, but I thought I’d leave y’all with this little true story that happened to me a few years back having to do with FrankenFoods.

At one time I was a promoter of Soy Protein Powder as a source of protein especially for some body builders I had as clients, and one day I was queried by one of them as to whether or not it was Genetically Engineered or not. GE had not been talked about very much up to that time and my knowledge on the subject was a bit scarce back then, but I thought I’d better investigate it. One of my friends had done some research on GE foods in general and the findings sent to me were shocking, outrageous, and downright scary.

To be on the safe side, I then decided to investigate this source that all my muscle builders were using, and proceeded to trace back the data trail as to how pervasive this GE thing was and whether or not there was any risk to my personal clients.

I went to our biggest local healthfood store in Clearwater called Nature’s Food Patch and asked the bulk food manager whether or not his Soy Protein Powder was GE or not. He emphatically told me that the Food Patch did NOT sell anything that was Genetically Modified. Absolutely Not! I then asked him what the name of the product was and who was its supplier. He told me it was called Supro 440 and they got it from NOW Foods. Wellllll, I thought this was a good start, as I do business with NOW (still do) as I feel they have the best Vitamin E and COQ10 on the planet at the best price (only a few of the products made by someone else that I am willing to trust and endorse which is why they are on my product and price list).

I then called NOW Foods and asked one of the technical advisors there if the Supro 440 that they were selling was Genetically Engineered. “Absolutely NOT! No way in hell would they sell anything that was GE. Ridiculous!” Welllllll, OK this sounded good so I asked him who the manufacturer was who supplied them with the stuff. He told me it was a company called Protein Technologies and readily gave me their number.

I’m feeling all right and making good headway here, so I next call up Protein Technologies and asked to speak to a technical supervisor there as I had some questions to put to him. I get him on the line and I ask, “Is your Supro 440 a Genetically Engineered product?”. —- Long pregnant pause, and then he returned with, “Well, what exactly do you mean by Genetically Engineered?”. All of a sudden, I wasn’t having a good day and I was starting to feel a little apprehensive. I returned with, “GE, you know, GMO, Genetically Modified Organism???”. He said, “One moment please, and I’ll let you speak to our Head Chemist”. After a wait of about 30 seconds (my apprehension is now building), the Lead Chemist from Protein Tech comes on the line and I ask my question again. He tells me proudly, “Wellllllll, yessss the Supro 440 is GE and most of our soy products are”. I’m feeling a little queasy at this stage and I ask, “do you have any Soy Protein Powder which is Organic and non-GMO?”. He then told me that they did but he had to confess that they used the same machines to process the Organic as they did the GE/GMO and that they did not clean the machines after each usage. The bottom of my stomach dropped about 40 feet but I had one more question, “Is Protein Technologies a solely owned company or is it a subsidiary?”

He said, “The parent company is Dupont.”!

I couldn’t talk for a bit and slowly just hung up the phone, I don’t even remember saying “goodbye” to the man.

I called back NOW Foods, and to their credit, they had the product off the shelf within a week. I then called back the Bulk Foods Manager at Nature’s Food Patch and told him the story. His response was, “Impossible, we sell NO GE/GMO foods in this store”.

Oh well, there are ostriches in this world and he never would believe me or even call up and verify it one way or the other. I then had the realization that one could lose many freedoms through complacency.

And the moral of this bed time story?

LOOK!!! DON’T LISTEN!!!

Yours in Knowledge, Health and Freedom,

Doc Shillington

PS. Since I originally wrote this article back in 2001, the amount of Genetically Engineered Soy products sold in the American marketplace has grown to more than 90%. It is also my conviction that the other 10% is contaminated.  The same goes for all corn products.  You and your family are far safer if you avoid all soy and corn products altogether.  Unless you grow it yourself, or unless you personally know the farmer who’s growing it, ALL SOY & CORN PRODUCTS AND BYPRODUCTS SHOULD BE SHUNNED!

Ian “Doc” Shillington N.D.

The Department of Agriculture clearly defines “natural” when applied to labeling. For meat and poultry, it means minimal processing, no artificial or synthetic ingredients, and no added hormones.

But the Food and Drug Administration says it has no plans to define natural or to restrict its use in labeling.

With no clear definition, confusion and controversy have been generated. Consumer groups are urging the FDA to restrict use of the word “natural” and they demand that food manufacturers stop freely using it until the government acts. This spring, one organization threatened legal action against a popular soft drink, “100% Natural” 7UP.

“Natural means nothing,” said Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and a senior scientist at Consumer Reports , which has urged government action. “You have to flip the box over and examine the ingredient list. You’ve got to do your homework. But there’s no requirement for what the ingredients have to be, to be considered natural.”

Courtesy of The Organic Consumers Association.

Keep in mind, while it’s very important to read ingredient labels, it’s even more important to consume whole, raw, fresh vegetables and fruits which, provided they are organic, are as “all natural” as it gets.

EasyBloom is a great tool for the gardener—especially one born with a black thumb. This little device tells you if your plants need water, diagnoses ailing plants, and makes plant recommendations (based on real conditions) as to which plants will thrive at a particular site.

To begin using EasyBloom, plug the device into one of your computer’s USB ports and choose which of the three functions you want to use: recommend mode, monitor mode, or water mode.

• Recommend mode—provides plant recommendations for a particular site, indoors or outside.
• Monitor mode—gives expert advice in caring for an existing plant.
• Water mode—provides immediate feedback on whether a plant needs water.

Once the mode is set, unplug the device from your computer and connect it to the sensor base. I chose the recommend mode and stuck the EasyBloom into a shady site in my back yard. Twenty-four hours later I plugged the device into my computer to receive my recommendations.

EasyBloom analyzed the site, providing the relative humidity, average temperature, and sunlight, then recommended a list of plants that should thrive in that location. To my surprise, it also gave me the opportunity to add pictures, take notes, and store the information in an archive section called “my readings.”

I also tried EasyBloom in its water mode. In this mode the device beeps when your plants need water. Unfortunately, none of the pots were dry at the time. I have not yet tried the monitor mode, which is designed to aid in diagnosing the problems plaguing an ailing plant.

I loved the design of the battery casing. A band encircles the battery which allows for easy removal and a means to easily disengage the battery when the device is not in use.

The EasyBloom website is user friendly, offering videos to help you learn to use the device and contact information for customer service. It also contains a database of more than 5000 plants with planting and care instructions and a feature that allows you to choose and store a listing of your favorite plants.

EasyBloom is a great device. Even though it does not analyze soil (I do so wish it would at least give me the ph), it is an excellent gardening aid, especially for the novice gardener. Coupled with the online resources, it is well worth its $60.00 price tag.

http://easybloom.com

Often considered a pesky weed, dandelions have become an underappreciated, yet highly nutritious, perennial plant. Dandelion’s scientific name is Taraxacum Officinale, which roughly translated means the “official remedy for disorders.” Dandelion leaves (along with the roots and flowers) have enjoyed a long history as a highly regarded folk remedy throughout the world. Dandelion was used in Europe to treat boils, fevers, eye disorders, diarrhea, edema, liver congestion, digestive complaints and skin disorders. Chinese used it mainly for breast, liver and digestive disorders. In India, Russia and other parts of the world, it was used as a general liver tonic. Legend has it that even the people of Atlantis relied on dandelion as a food and nutritive tonic.

Originally from Europe, dandelions were brought to America by early colonists. Healers on the early American frontier often recommended dandelion greens as a rejuvenating springtime tonic because of its high nutrient content and vast healing properties. Today, the dandelion is beginning to see a resurgence in appreciation among the general population, and for good cause! Dandelion leaves are a rich source of many vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, C, E, D, K, the range of B vitamins, calcium, iron, potassium, zinc, and magnesium. They are higher in beta-carotene than carrots and have more iron and calcium than spinach. According to scientific analysis, a one-cup serving has more vitamin A than most supplements and as much calcium as half a glass of milk. As if this wasn’t enough, the greens are also a natural source of omega-3 and 6 essential fatty acids.

The healing properties of dandelion greens center primarily around the digestive organs. As a bitter green, dandelion helps support digestion by encouraging the production of digestive enzymes and stomach juices. It has a mild diuretic effect, improving the way kidneys cleanse the blood and recycle nutrients. However, unlike over-the-counter or prescription diuretics, it doesn’t leach potassium. Dandelion greens are a rich source of chlorophyll (the green pigment that helps plants turn sunlight into energy), which helps to promote the growth of beneficial intestinal flora. Their digestive-stimulating, blood-cleansing, kidney-improving properties also make dandelion greens beneficial for clearing up skin issues and reducing swelling and inflammation.

Although this “official remedy for disorders” is available year-round, its peak season is April and May. The easiest way to get your hands on some is to purchase a fresh bundle at your local grocer or farmers market. But if you decide to give foraging a go, keep in mind that the greens are best picked when they are young and tender, before the flowers have bloomed.

Dandelion leaves have a bitter and tangy flavor that is a great addition to salads. They are also delicious quickly steamed then sautéed with garlic and olive oil. Older leaves tend to be a little tougher and should be cooked longer in soups or stews. To prepare dandelion greens simply wash them under cold water to remove any dirt and trim the bottom where the leaves were picked. Then toss into your salad, soup, stir fry, or sauté pan! purify the blood and

If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.

• Click here to read part II
• Click here to read part III
• Click here to read part IV

Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.

Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.

Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.

Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.

“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.   “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers.  The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.”  Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”

Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.

I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”

He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”

In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.”  One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.

While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.

Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents.  Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.

Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”

Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.

What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.

“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.

“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”

This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to read Monsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Monsanto part II
• Monsanto part III
• Monsanto part IV

I’ve had a coffee addiction for most of my adult life. When I say addiction, I mean ADDICTION! Once I start my first cup in the morning, I can’t stop. And I can’t drink weak coffee. I like high octane, dark roast, light a fire under your bum coffee. I’m not one of those people who can have a cup of coffee and then lay down for a nap. In fact I can’t drink coffee past 2 pm, or I’m up all night. This is a problem, since I already said once I start drinking coffee, I can’t stop.

I’m very committed to being healthy and consuming healthy foods. I tried to convince myself that since I drank organic coffee, it was healthy. I loved reading those studies about how coffee is good for you because it’s high in antioxidants. But, in the back of my mind, I knew better. Any health benefits were canceled out by the stress it caused my adrenals and kidneys. That all too familiar shaky feeling, the need to remind myself to breathe, the irritability.  While I can completely blame all of my irritation on my husband, the short temper with my kids was inexcusable.

So I finally hit rock bottom.  Coffee was making me way too manic, and my body way too acidic. My jaw was always clenched and my neck tight. I knew what I had to do. It took me months to finally make the attempt. I really didn’t think it was possible, not for me anyways. I had tried to stop in the past and it just didn’t work. It didn’t matter if I replaced my morning cup of coffee with tea or juice, I just wanted COFFEE!

Then I tried Teeccino. Teeccino is a non caffeinated coffee alternative made from roasted herbs. I had tried it in the past and it didn’t work for me. This time I was a little more committed and Teeccino had come out with different flavors. I tried their Maya CafféHerbal Coffee and after my first sip, I knew kicking my coffee habit was possible.

I weaned myself off the caffeine. I started out doing 3/4 coffee, 1/4 Teecino for about 3 days. Then I went down to half coffee, half Teeccino and so on and for 2 weeks until I had completely eliminated coffee. No headaches, no mood changes.  I had a little bit of brain fog for the first couple of weeks but it eventually subsided. I probably could have avoided the brain fog if I had weaned myself off the caffeine slower. It’s been about 2 months since have kicked my coffee addiction. When I get up in the morning my head is clear and I feel great. I still go straight to the coffee maker to brew my Teeccino, but that’s just psychological. My body is thanking me.