It's Official....Big Food Sues Vermont

On Friday, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) filed a lawsuit in federal the U.S. District Court, State of Vermont, to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law.

The Organic Consumers Association, through our allied lobbying arm, the Organic Consumers Fund, has committed to contributing as much as we can to defend Vermont’s labeling law, while we also fulfill our $500,000 pledge to help Oregon pass a GMO labeling initiative in November.

These battles that pit consumer health and rights against multi-billion corporations belong to all of us. Can you help us raise $250,000 by June 30, so we can defend Vermont and push forward in Oregon and other states? 

You can donate online, by mail or by phone—details here. 

After years of good old-fashioned work, and playing by the rules, the grassroots labeling movement achieved its first real victory this year, when Vermont passed the first no-strings-attached law requiring mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms.

But the rules mean nothing to the rich and powerful companies like Monsanto and Coca-Cola, who belong to one of the country’s most powerful lobbying groups—the GMA.

This is the moment of truth for the grassroots GMO labeling movement. If Monsanto and the GMA succeed in overturning Vermont’s GMO labeling law, lawmakers in the other 29 states that are currently considering GMO labeling bills will drop them like hot potatoes.

We can’t let that happen. Your donation today will help us defend Vermont, and pass GMO labeling in Oregon.

Legal experts assure us that Vermont’s labeling law will hold up in court. 

But we can’t win in federal court unless we show up. And that means paying a legal team to defend what’s rightfully ours.

This battle is about your health, and the health of your environment.  This battle is about the rights of states to pass laws to protect their citizens.

This is our battle. And it’s going to take all of us pulling together to win it.

Please consider a donation today to defend Vermont’s historical GMO labeling law, and win in Oregon in November. 

 Thank you!

Ronnie Cummins
National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

P.S. Funds donated directly to campaigns must be raised through the Organic Consumers Fund, our allied 501(c)4 lobbying arm. If you need to make a tax-deductible donation, please donate to our 501(c)3 nonprofit. Your donation will indirectly support our GMO bans and labeling law campaigns by funding our ongoing education and media work.

Connect With OCA:

Let’s Kick Some Grass!

As if the world’s most widely used poison, Monsanto’s Roundup, didn’t already pose a huge public health threat. Now, Monsanto and Scotts have teamed up to market Roundup Ready Kentucky Bluegrass, genetically engineered to withstand massive doses of Roundup.

You probably won’t buy it. But what’s to stop commercial landscapers from using it just about anywhere?

Nothing. Because it’s unregulated.

Scotts new GMO grass poses two critical dangers. One, it will lead to even more widespread use of poisons that scientists say are making us, and especially our children, sick. And two, it will spread, contaminating everything in its sight, including the pastures of organic farmers.

Monsanto and Scotts are both members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the group we targeted last week for the Great Boycott. Let’s give Scotts a little extra attention this week. Let Scotts Chairman & CEO Jim Hagedorn, Chief Communications Officer Jim King, and a few other key executives know that we won’t buy their Miracle-Gro products until they drop plans to market their GMO grass.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Scotts You Don’t Want More of Monsanto’s Chemicals in Your Soil and Drinking Water, and that You’re Boycotting All Scotts Products until the Company Drops Plans to Sell GMO Grass.

Post on Scotts Miracle-Gro Facebook

Call Jim King, Chief Communications Officer for Scotts
(937) 578-5622
More about Scotts GMO Grass

More about the GMA boycott

TAKE ACTION: Pledge to Boycott the 300-Plus Members of the GMA, Including the Traitor Brands!

GMA boycott website

Photo Credit: sdbrown via Compfight cc

Sharia Law's Threat to American Culture!

My questions to my fellow Americans are these: Why is it considered wrong for us Americans to want to fight for and keep OUR culture when every other country in the world does it for THEIR'S? And if we Americans went over to other countries in a large number, settled there...would they change their cultures to accommodate us to allow our laws to overrule theirs?

 So why do other countries' people come here and expect it of us? And why are there some bleeding heart liberal legislators, judges and Americans even considering allowing it to happen here?

Please read the following message and consider buying the book to inform yourself further on the angers of not standing up and telling these bleeding hearts that our country and our culture is NOT for sale or takeover...at ANY cost!

******************************************************************

The infiltration of Islam and the subtle implementation of Sharia (the legal system supporting the religion of Islam) is the first step in the systematic takeover of a nation through "cultural jihad".

Many Americans naively believe it can't happen in our nation. I assure you that the effort is already stealthily underway.

+ + Some lawmakers see the rising danger. 

Just weeks ago, Florida legislators passed SB 386, a law prohibiting the “Application of Foreign Law in Courts.”

Florida joins North Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee in passing similar laws. In Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed a similar bill in June.

These laws are commonly referred to as “anti-Sharia” laws, when in fact they have more widespread coverage — but the intent is extremely important.

A report by the Huffington Post following the North Carolina legislative action clearly depicts the issue…
 

“Supporters hailed the bill as an important safeguard that protects the American legal system from foreign laws that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, while critics argued that the bill’s only purpose is to whip-up anti Muslim hatred because the Constitution already overrides foreign laws.

 
While many of America's Muslims portray their religion as a "religion of peace," we plainly see worldwide what Islamic infiltration and Sharia do to oppress a nation and its people when left unchecked.  
 

I believe that these bold lawmakers would not pass bills that were considered “bigoted” or “unnecessary.” They too see the growing threat and pressure in their respective states’ law.

+ + Sharia is knocking on the doors of our judicial system.

The Constitution of the United States is intended to be the legal foundation for all laws in our nation.

The emerging problem is, we have activist judges who believe that the Constitution is a pliable document and intended to be adapted to changing culture. Because of the rising influence of Islam in our nation, Constitution pliability includes the implementation of Sharia in the minds of some of these radical judges.
 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) stated vision is “to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding. CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialog, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

CAIR is also one of the leading voices and proponents of imposing Sharia into American law.

+ + Get the book that reveals the growing danger of radical Islamists and the infiltration of Sharia on our shores.

Our new Patriot’s Handbook on Sharia’s Threat to American Culture exposes the growing threat to America including segments on Sharia’s advancement worldwide.

This new exclusive Liberty Counsel resource discloses how the advancement of radical Islam and the infusion of Sharia into our nation are among the greatest threats to every freedom-loving country’s culture, system of justice, and religious freedom.

I hope you’ll give strong consideration to ordering this insightful and very timely book.

Click here to order your copy of this valuable new resource now.

http://www.libertyaction.org/201150/offer.asp

The handbook covers a number of important topics including…
 

•Sharia’s advance throughout the world
•The Constitution and Sharia – Collision in America’s Courts
•Infiltration through Cultural Jihad

I’ve also written an exclusive special essay that is an overview of this growing threat. This valuable resource is yours for a gift of any amount.
 
Thank you for your attention to this important matter that is an icreasing threat to our nation.

As always, we are One Nation under God! 

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Hillary Clinton..."Poor Pitiful Dead Broke Me"!

First of all...I think Ms. Hillary's definition of "dead broke" is not even in the same class definition of the rest of us "regular" folks!
And secondly, if by HER standard of definition of dead broke, she couldn't handle her OWN finances correctly, do we REALLY want her handling the COUNTRY'S economy as president? Aren't we in enough financial trouble without that too?

Check this out....
both her & hubby Clinton got $200,000.00 for each speaking engagement and made over $5 million....17 million for Mr. Hillary the following year of leaving the White House...
she got an $8 million advance for her book, "It Takes A Village"......
she & hubby owns TWO multi-million dollar mansions....
and her and hubby have made over $100 million dollars since 2001....
but yet she says that they came out of the white house not only dead broke, but also in debt!
WHAT???? Let me see, I just listed over $113 million dollars in income PLUS 2 multi-million dollar mansions and she says that they were DEAD BROKE when they left the white house? What in the hell were they buying and/or spending their money on to spend over $113 million dollars? (And that's not including whatever investments they may have had nor any funds over the $8 million dollars advance of her book that the book brought in nor Mr. Hillary's presidential income of $450,000.00!) I'm sorry Hillary, but try being in MY shoes, eh? I'm a service connected disabled veteran who makes less then $40,000.00 a year, am in foreclosure due to Countrywide's fraudulent activities and am fighting tooth and nail to not lose my ONE and ONLY home and not become homeless...can't afford to send MY wee one to ANY kind of college and fight each month to just keep my head above water (and I'm consider a lucky one compared to the general population!) and YOU are crying that YOU are dead broke??? GET A REALITY CHECK missy! You are so full of bullshit that you could float forever down the Potomac River, out to the Chesapeake Bay and out to the Atlantic Ocean! While you have been and continue to be in the lap of luxury, the majority of Americans fight each and every day to keep a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food on their tables. We do NOT want to hear YOU complain about any financial distress. Because if you have ANY, it's your own damn fault!!!!

Not All Cop Shoot Outs Are Justified

I hope these police officers get life!

A nighttime car chase in Cleveland that ended on a schoolyard where more than 100 shots were fired at the suspect’s vehicle appeared to be over when an officer opened fire again, a prosecutor said in announcing charges against the patrolman and five police supervisors.

Cleveland patrol officer Michael Brelo stood on the hood of the suspect’s car and fired at least 15 shots through the windshield — five fatal — at the two unarmed people inside, Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said Friday.

McGinty cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that said police can’t fire on suspects after a public safety threat has ended. He said the other officers on the scene had stopped firing after the November 2012 chase ended.

6 Cleveland officers indicted in deadly car chase

By MARK GILLISPIE, Associated Press | May 31, 2014 | Updated: May 31, 2014 4:28pm

•  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty makes a statement regarding the grand jury announcement of the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams Friday, May 30, 2014, in Cleveland. A grand jury on Friday indicted six police officers involved in a November 2012 car chase that ended in the deaths of two unarmed people, was decried by critics as a racially motivated execution and is part of a wide-ranging federal investigation. The grand jury indicted a patrol officer on two charges of manslaughter and five supervisors on charges of dereliction of duty for failing to control the chase.

CLEVELAND (AP) — A police car chase that ended in a schoolyard with two unarmed suspects dying in a hail of 137 bullets is part of a wide-ranging federal investigation into the Cleveland Police Department's use of deadly force and its pursuit policies.

Six officers in the police department were indicted Friday on charges related to the chase, Cuyohoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said. Patrol officer Michael Brelo, who the prosecutor said stood on the hood of the suspects' car and fired at least 15 shots through the windshield, has been charged with two counts of manslaughter. Five supervisors have been charged with dereliction of duty for failing to control the chase.

McGinty cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that said police can't fire on suspects after a public safety threat has ended. He said the other officers on the scene had stopped firing after the November 2012 chase ended.

"This was now a stop-and-shoot — no longer a chase-and-shoot," McGinty said. "The law does not allow for a stop-and-shoot."

Driver Timothy Russell was shot 23 times. Passenger Malissa Williams was shot 24 times. No gun was found on them or in their vehicle. The chase began when an officer thought he heard a gunshot from a car speeding by the police and courts complex, jumped into his patrol car and radioed for help. Police don't know why Russell didn't stop.

Brelo fired 49 shots. None of the other 12 officers who fired shots were indicted, McGinty said Friday.

The killings have been decried as a racially motivated execution — both victims were black — and are part of a larger federal investigation into the troubled police department.

The chase involved five dozen cruisers and wove through residential neighborhoods, onto Interstate 90 and eventually ended in East Cleveland. McGinty said the chase covered 20 miles over 23 minutes and reached speeds of 110 mph.

Safety director Michael McGrath said 104 of the 277 Cleveland officers on duty that night were involved.

The police union has defended the officers' actions and said the driver was trying to ram them. Capt. Brian Betley, the leader of theFraternal Order of Police, which represents police supervisors, told the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer that he was disappointed in the grand jury's findings.

In a statement Friday, Williams' family told the Plain Dealer they were grateful for prosecutors' work and stressed that now is the time for the community to heal.

"Now is the time for us to join and have positive dialogue about solutions," the family said. "We need to figure out how the police department can work better with the community and not against them."

The police department has been dealing with the fallout from the chase.

Police officials announced in March that the department will limit when and how long squad cars can chase suspects. The revamped policy was in the works before the deadly chase, but what happened did influence the new guidelines, Police Chief Calvin Williams said.

A review of the chase led to the discipline of 64 of the 104 officers involved in the chase for violations of department rules, McGrath said. Twelve supervisors were disciplined, including one who was fired and two who were demoted, McGrath said.

An investigation by the Ohio attorney general blamed police leadership and communications failures during the chase. McGinty said investigating the chase was complicated by the fact that Cleveland cruisers don't have video cameras.

The 43-year-old Russell had a criminal record including convictions for receiving stolen property and robbery. Williams, 30, had convictions for drug-related charges and attempted abduction.

The estates of Russell and Williams have sued the city, the mayor and police. The lawsuit, which is still ongoing, asks the court to order the city to make changes in police policies to prevent similar situations.

The supervisors indicted on misdemeanor dereliction of duty charges were Lt. Paul Wilson, Sgt. Patricia Coleman, Sgt. Randolph Dailey, Sgt. Michael Donegan and Sgt. Jason Edens.
Thank you to Jeannette Triplett for the heads up on this!

See Why GE Foods In The U.S. Are Illegal

(This is the very last paragraph of the following report. I wanted to open with it as it deserves saying twice!). 
Consequently, the marketing of GE foods in the U.S. is illegal because none of them is GRAS and none has undergone formal food additive approval. And it’s high time that the American people were informed of this fact.

WHY THE FDA’S POLICY ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

IS FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL

Steven M. Druker, J.D.

Executive Director

Alliance for Bio-Integrity

Although most Americans (including those who serve in government) are unaware of it, genetically engineered foods are on the market only because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has covered up the warnings of its own scientists, misrepresented the facts, and violated explicit mandates of U.S. law. The following points provide the details.

1. The Food Additive Amendment of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act institutes a precautionary approach and requires that new additives to food must be demonstrated safe before they are marketed. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 321)

2. An official Senate report described the intent of the amendment as follows: “While Congress did not want to unnecessarily stifle technological advances, it nevertheless intended that additives created through new technologies be proven safe before they go to market.” (S. Rep. 2422, 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5301- 2)

3. Although the FDA admits that the various genetic materials implanted in bioengineered organisms are within the amendment’s purview, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). (Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

4. However, the FDA’s regulations state that substances added to food that were not in use prior to 1958 cannot qualify as GRAS unless they meet two requirements. Not only must they be acknowledged as safe by an overwhelming consensus of experts, but this consensus must be based on “scientific procedures” – which ordinarily entail studies published in peer-reviewed journals. (21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b))

5. FDA regulations further stipulate that these scientific procedures must provide a demonstration of safety and that GRAS substances "...require the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive." (21 CFR Sec. 170.30(b)) Thus, it’s clear that the GRAS exemption is not supposed to reduce the degree of testing but rather to relieve a producer from performing new tests for substances already known to be safe on the basis of previous ones.

6. Genetically engineered (GE) foods fail both requirements. There is substantial dispute among experts about their safety; and none has been confirmed safe through adequate testing.

7. As the FDA was developing its policy on GE foods during 1991-92, there was not even consensus about safety among its own experts. The predominant opinion was (a) that these new foods entail unique risks, especially the potential for unintended harmful side effects that are difficult to detect and (b) that none can be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous tests capable of screening for such effects. These scientists expressed their concerns in numerous memos to superiors – memos that only came to light in 1998 when the lawsuit led by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity forced the FDA to
divulge its files. [Copies of these FDA memos are posted on www.biointegrity.org]

8. For example, microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl stated: "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ...." He added that several aspects of gene- splicing ". . . may be more hazardous . . ." (FDA Document 4 at http://www.biointegrity.org) Similarly, Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that ". . . genetically modified plants could ... contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants...," and he cautioned that some of these toxicants could be unexpected and could "...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants." (FDA Document 2 at http://www.biointegrity.org) Citing the potential for such unintended dangers, the Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for bioengineered products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated: "... CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique [emphasis added] animal and food safety concerns." (FDA Document 10 at http://www.biointegrity.org) He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.

9. In light of these unique risks, agency scientists advised that GE foods should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests. (e.g. FDA Documents 2 and 6 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

10. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who protested the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She declared: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (FDA Document 1 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

11. Moreover, FDA officials knew there was not a consensus about the safety of GE foods among scientists outside the agency either. For instance, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged in a letter to a Canadian health official that there was no such consensus in the scientific community at large. He also admitted, "I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict." (FDA Document 8 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

12. This lack of consensus in itself disqualifies GE foods from GRAS status. But even if consensus did exist, no GE food would qualify as GRAS because none has satisfactorily passed the level of testing that the law requires – and that the FDA experts stated is necessary. The agency’s files demonstrate that as of 1992, there was virtually no evidence to support safety, with one official’s memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator querying: " … are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data?” (FDA Document 1 at http://www.biointegrity.org) And the evidentiary base is still deficient because the FDA does not require any testing; and the tests relied on by the EU, Canada, and others do not adequately screen for the unexpected side effects about which the FDA scientists warned. The inadequacy of current testing has been pointed out by numerous experts, including the Royal Society of Canada and the Public Health Association of Australia. (Also see paragraph 27 below.)

13. Despite the ample evidence indicating a lack of consensus about safety, as well as the lack of requisite evidence to confirm it, the FDA’s decision-makers (who acknowledge they’ve been operating under a policy “to foster” the U.S. biotechnology industry) declared that as long as a GE food does not introduce a known toxin or allergen, they would presume that it’s GRAS – and can therefore be marketed without any testing. In doing so, they professed themselves “not aware of any information” showing that GE foods differ from others “in any meaningful way,” even though they had received extensive input from their scientists pointing out the significant differences and their serious implications. (The agency’s promotional policy was acknowledgement in “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14. Its fraudulent denial of awareness appears in: Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

14. Although many people have been made to believe that the U.S. district court in Alliance for Bio-Integrity v Shalala determined that GE foods are on the market legally, its decision actually highlights the extent to which their presence is contrary to the law. (Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at p. 179)

15. In her written opinion, the judge stated: “Plaintiffs have produced several documents showing significant disagreements among scientific experts.” (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at 177) However, she ruled that the crucial issue was not whether GE foods were in fact GRAS at the time of the lawsuit (or were actually GRAS when the FDA issued its policy statement on GE foods in May 1992) but whether FDA administrators had acted arbitrarily in 1992 in presuming that they were GRAS. Therefore, because she held that the case hinged on this narrow procedural issue of whether there had been adequate rational basis for the FDA’s presumption, she said that any evidence showing lack of expert consensus at the time of the lawsuit was irrelevant, since it was not within the administrators’ purview when they formed their policy in 1992.

16. As for the evidence that had been within the FDA’s own files in 1992, she ruled that the administrators were free to disregard the opinions of subordinates when setting policy. (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) p.178) This conclusion seems odd, since the written opinions of the agency’s scientists represented far more than mere policy preferences. They constituted solid evidence that a significant number of experts did not recognize GE foods as safe. Further, the judge failed to mention the fact that the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted there was not a consensus within the scientific community, even though plaintiffs’ briefs had emphasized it and cited the relevant document.

17. She additionally disregarded the fact (which had also been clearly pointed out to her) that the FDA’s files demonstrated there was insufficient technical evidence about safety to support a presumption that GE foods are GRAS. Although her opinion initially acknowledged that such technical evidence is legally required, she never returned to the issue – a highly irregular outcome.

18. Therefore, because she ignored so much important evidence, her ruling is highly questionable. It’s also quite narrow. She did not determine that GE foods are (or ever were) truly GRAS. Nor did she determine that any has been demonstrated safe. She merely held that given the evidence before them in 1992, FDA officials had not acted arbitrarily in presuming that the foods were GRAS. Further, she emphasized that their presumption is, as a matter of law, rebuttable. (p.172)

19. This is a crucial point, because even if one believes that the FDA administrators had reasonable basis in 1992 to presume that all GE foods are GRAS, it’s obvious that their rebuttable presumption has been clearly and continuously rebutted – both by the ever-growing dispute among experts and the ongoing lack of adequate testing.

20. Moreover, the lack of consensus and the lack of evidence are glaringly apparent, as the next seven paragraphs amply demonstrate.

21. In the Alliance for Bio-Integrity lawsuit, nine of the plaintiffs were well-credentialed life scientists (including tenured professors at UC Berkeley, Rutgers, the University of Minnesota, and the NYU School of Medicine) who asserted they did not regard GE foods as safe. As noted in paragraph 15 above, the judge acknowledged we had demonstrated there were “significant disagreements among scientific experts.” This in itself established that as of May 1998, GE foods could not be considered GRAS.

22. The following year, the respected medical journal The Lancet strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional foods, stating that there are “good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist” and that “governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” (The Lancet, Volume 353, Issue 9167, Page 1811, 29 May 1999)

23. In 2001, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report declaring (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. (“Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001) In describing the report’s criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: “The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions.” (Calamai, P., “Ottawa Rapped, Expert Study Considered Major Setback for Biotech Industry,” Toronto Star , February 5, 2001)

24. The British Medical Association has also expressed reservations about the safety of these novel products. As described in the British Medical Journal, the Association released a 2004 report stating that “more research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.” (Kmietowicz, Z. “GM Foods Should Be Submitted to Further Studies, says BMA,” British Medical Journal, 2004 March 13; 328(7440): 602)

25. In October 2013, a large number of well-qualified experts signed a statement asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated. As of December 10 of that year, the statement had 297 signatories. (http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/)

26. Thus, the absence of requisite consensus is irrefutable, especially in light of the fact that the FDA has, in court, established that an additive was not GRAS merely by producing testimony from two experts who did not regard it as safe. (United States v. Seven Cartons . . . Ferro-Lac, 293 F. Supp. 660, 664 (N.D. Il. 1968)


27. Further, not only has there never been a genuine consensus about the safety of GE foods, the evidentiary base on which such a consensus is legally required to rest has never existed either – and is still absent. This is well-attested by David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who recently asserted: “As a medical research scientist who published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed critique of genetically modified food safety testing, I can state confidently that it is false to say such foods and the toxic chemicals they require are extensively tested and proved safe. No producer-independent safety testing, long-term or multigenerational rodent studies or epidemiological studies have been done to support the hypothesis that these foods are safe.” (Letter to the LA Times, October 28, 2012)

Consequently, the marketing of GE foods in the U.S. is illegal because none of them is GRAS and none has undergone formal food additive approval. And it’s high time that the American people were informed of this fact.

White House Releases Shocking Image of “King Obama”

On May 4, 2014, a picture began to circulate that showed President Barack Obama sitting on a throne in the West Wing with a gold crown on his knee.

At first, many assumed that the picture had been created by one of the president’s enemies. But just as many were then shocked to discover that the image had been created and released by the White House itself.

Here is the original White House tweet that released the image:

Writing for BenSwann.com, Michael Lotfi provides the context for the photoshopped image:

The picture depicts “King Obama” sitting upon the “Iron Throne” at Kings Landing in the ancient kingdom of Westeros from the HBO hit series Game of Thrones. The photo looks as if it was lifted straight from The Onion. However, it is not. The image is a result of Obama’s speech at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner where he joked about enacting more executive orders. The administration took it upon themselves to create the photo of King Obama, and the official White House Twitter account sent out the tweet before last week’s episode aired.

Obama sits with the King’s crown in his hands and former King Joeffrey’s crossbow sitting on the coffee table. The tweet reads “The Westeros Wing.”

Of course, the idea of Obama exercising dictatorial powers is no laughing matter. Rand Paul criticized Obama last year for “acting like a king or monarch.”

Furthermore, Obama has killed countless innocent victims by carrying out unilateral drone strikes on the people who find their way onto his kill list.

This is not the first time the president has attempted to use humor to push his agenda. In March, Obama joined comedian Zach Galifianakis on an episode of Between Two Ferns to push Obamacare.

What do you think about the image? Leave a comment with your thoughts HERE.

Another State-Run Health Care Exchange Fails in Epic Fashion

The Obama Administration told Americans that the Affordable Care Act would provide less expensive insurance to more people and with easier access. Unfortunately, these promises all turned out to be lies. The latest example (and failure) comes from one of the most liberal states and its health care exchange, Cover Oregon.

Last Friday the board of Cover Oregon voted to abandon the state-run website and exchange entirely and convert to the federal website, HealthCare.gov. The board made this decision after learning it would cost $78 million to fix the Cover Oregon site compared to an estimated $4 million to $6 million to convert to the federal portal.

The state had already hired Oracle, a well-known Silicon Valley firm, and paid them $134 million to create the state exchange website. The federal government contributed another $250 million in grant money. Do the math. It appears $384 million is the going rate to build a failed health care website these days.

To add insult to injury, not one citizen of the Beaver State was enrolled in health insurance through the Cover Oregon website. However, 70,000 Oregonians enrolled for health insurance with paper applications and another 172,000 enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan. That’s the state’s version of Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income families and individuals.

The downfall of Cover Oregon is a big political embarrassment to three-term Governor John Kitzhaber (D) – an emergency room physician – and other state officials. It certainly doesn’t help the Governor’s campaign to be re-elected this November.

READ THE RET OF THE ARTICLE HERE.

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

Since this is a long and sometimes technical article that refers to several PDF files, I'm going to give the first paragraph of this article here and then the URL to the rest of it so you can peruse it at your leisure.

Conclusiveness of toxicity data and double standards

We would like to comment on your answers (Hayes, 2014a) concerning the retraction of our study (Seralini et al., 2012 and Hayes, 2014b) by Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Our study investigated the long-term effects in rats of consumption of two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup, together and separately. The decision to retract the paper was reached a few months after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee as “editor for biotechnology”, a position created for him at FCT ( Robinson and Latham, 2013). In a recent editorial, Portier and colleagues express concern about the “dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process” in the case of our study ( Portier et al., 2014).

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE HERE

Ban Roundup!

By GMO Free USA

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the ubiquitous herbicide Roundup, was originally patented as a chelator back in 1964. It bonds to minerals like calcium, iron, magnesium & manganese and removes them. It was used to clean pipes that had mineral buildup. It is the most widely used herbicide, primarily due to the widespread cultivation of Roundup Ready GMO crops. This leads us to ask... when you spray a chelator on our farmland and our food, how much of the nutrients are chelated from the soil and the crops. Add to that the fact that glyphosate is in our food - and we have to wonder to what extent it is removing vital nutrients from us?! BAN ROUNDUP.



LEARN more about Glyphosate & GMO crops HERE

READ: over 200 Peer reviewed studies that found health or environmental harm from Glyphosate/Roundup

The Cost for 4 Failed Healthcare Exchanges Will Blow Your Mind

The bad news about ObamaCare just seems to get worse…

Four states that embraced the Affordable Care Act – Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Maryland – have spent $474 million for state health care exchanges and each of these websites and programs have beenabysmal failures. And the final price tag to fix or transition from these exchanges to the federal one could go much higher.

The federal government now has the difficult decision of spending more money to fix the existing exchanges, or to transition them over to the federal exchange at HealthCare.gov.

So what have these four states done to try to fix the problems with their exchanges?

After an investigation by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and the resignation of five Cover Oregon board members, the board decided to abandon the state exchange and use HealthCare.gov.

Nevada is undecided about whether to fix the existing exchange or switch to the federal one, but will decide in the next few weeks. An outside report concluded that trying to fix the flaws in the Nevada Health Link exchange would be a daunting task.

Lynn Etkins, vice chair of the Health Link board said last week, “The report seems overwhelming to me. And I really am not hearing anything that all of these issues are going to be resolved well before open enrollment so testing can be done.”

Maryland is trying to transition its flawed exchange to the same technology used by the state of Connecticut. If this fix doesn’t meet federal approval, Maryland would default to Healthcare.gov. Massachusetts wants to do both: Build a new health care portal from scratch and plan a move to the federal exchange as a backup.

The Bay State has already spent $170 million on its exchange. It would cost an additional $120 million to fix it. That’s double the cost estimate to switch over to HealthCare.gov. However, state officials believe the Obama Administration would provide federal funds to make the Massachusetts exchange work because it [RomneyCare] was the predecessor to ObamaCare.

Currently 36 states use the federal system at the Healthcare.gov portal, far more than was originally estimated. If these in-state exchange fixes don’t work, the number of states using the federal system (and the federal dollars spent on ObamaCare) will go even higher.

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT AMERICAN PROSPERITY HERE.

ObamaCare Contractors Paid to Do… Nothing?

When you hear the President, Jay Carney and other supporters talk about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they’d have you believe it’s a big success. They paint a picture of tons of traffic to Healthcare.gov and state-run exchange websites… millions of Americans getting lower-cost, higher-quality health insurance… and ObamaCare contractors working diligently to process millions of applications.

However, just like the President’s famous claim “If you like your plan, you can keep you plan” - none of these are true.

What have these insurance workers really done? In two locations in Missouri and Kentucky the answer is: Most of the time, absolutely nothing.

Last Wednesday, two whistleblowers told St. Louis TV station KMOV that employees at an ACA processing center in Wentzville, MO  are paid to do nothing but sit at their computers. The facility is run by British company Serco, which has a $1.2 billion contract to process paper health insurance applications under ObamaCare.

READ THE REST OF THE STORY HERE.

READ THE REST OF THIS STORY HERE.READ

Irish People Protest Against Banks

People EVERYWHERE are fed up with the corrupt banks!

Not My Problem, Man

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) signaled it will approve Dow’s new Enlist-brand corn and soy crops, genetically engineered to resist massive doses of 2,4-D.

You remember 2,4-D. It’s similar in composition to Agent Orange, the Vietnam-era herbicide responsiblefor severe illnesses in people directly exposed to it, and also in their offspring and future generations.

The USDA admits to concerns that if the new crops are approved, the annual use of 2,4-D would jump from 26 million pounds to 176 million pounds. (Independent scientists predict the increase would be even more dramatic.)

But hey, it’s not the USDA's problem. According to the agency, it’s responsible only for approving the genetically engineered seeds, not the new formulation of 2,4-D herbicide that will be used on the crops. So the USDA is passing the buck to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which it says is responsible for approving the new formulation of 2,4-D herbicide that will be used Dow’s Agent Orange crops.

Deadline Midnight May 30: Tell the EPA, Don’t Approve More Cancer-Causing Agent Orange Herbicide!

Photo Credit: eek the cat via Compfight cc

Lush, Green . . . and Toxic

Genetically engineered grass could soon be coming to a lawn, or a park or a golf course or an office complex—or an organic pasture—near you.

In July 2011, Scotts Company and Monsantoconvinced the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to give the companies a free pass to market their genetically engineered Roundup-Ready Kentucky Bluegrass. No testing required.

Now, employees of the Marysville, Ohio-based company are set to begin testing new GMO grass on their lawns. The company says it plans to sell the product commercially in 2015. Sales to consumers will start in 2016.

Where would you rather your kids play? On a lawn with a little crabgrass and some dandelions (which by the way, make great food)? Or a lawn drenched in Monsanto’s toxicRoundup?

Read the essay

Photo Credit: Ben McLeod via Compfight cc