Sandra Finley

Jun 062013
 

http://presidiosentinel.com/local-news/is-our-drinking-water-safe

 

Is Our Drinking Water Safe?

Patty Ducey-Brooks

Almost two years ago, against the wishes of the majority of San Diegans, our tap water began being treated with hydrofluosilicic acid (artificial fluoride), not calcium fluoride. What I have learned with the assistance of scientists with the EPA, dentists and chemists is that artificial fluoride is 35 times more toxic (lethal dose 150mg/kg as opposed to 5,000mg/kg) than calcium fluoride. It also binds to bones and tissues to a far greater degree than natural fluoride, thus causing myriad potential health disturbances.

To demonstrate how people can make a difference, this past month a broad coalition of Portlanders resoundingly rejected adding fluoridation chemicals to the city’s water supply. By a 61 percent to 39 percent margin, Portland voters agreed with the position of most western nations that there are safer, more effective, and less intrusive ways to promote oral health than adding a chemical linked to thyroid disease, IQ loss, and other ailments to the water supply.

Portland’s clean water campaign was spearheaded by Clean Water Portland (CWP), a broad coalition formed in August 2012 after a newspaper revealed secret ongoing fluoridation meetings with Portland City Council members that were illegally kept off the record. With virtually no public input, the City Council mandated fluoridation for the city on September 12. CWP then led an unprecedented effort that gathered over 40,000 signatures in less than 30 days to halt the mandate and force the referendum vote.

Additionally, this past month, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill that requires chemical companies to fully disclose all the chemicals they are dumping into Utah’s water along with the toxic fluoride which has been represented for more than 60 years across the U.S. as a means of preventing dental caries. The bill – H.B. 72 – is not designed to permanently stop water fluoridation or make a statement about whether fluoride’s rewards (its alleged property of preventing dental caries) outweighs its risks for causing various types of cancer, osteoporosis, MS and a host of other diseases. The bill is simply designed to force companies such as Thatcher and Mosaic Chemical to disclose exactly what is contained in the entire witches-brew batch of fluoridation chemicals being dumped in Utah’s drinking water.

The fluoridation companies came under intense scrutiny after Utah’s analysis of various spills and releases of the fluoridation chemicals revealed that in addition to fluoride, there were several other toxic chemicals far in excess of allowable limits for safe drinking water – chemicals that included aluminum, arsenic, lead, mercury and beryllium which, when mixed with fluoride, become especially active and dangerous to human health.

What does this mean for those of us in San Diego? It means it is time to bring this information to our new mayor, Mr. Filner, and our council members. It’s time they also ask the question that the governor of Utah poses, “What chemicals are you putting in our drinking water, and what harm can they create?

To learn more about this topic, visit San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water’s web site: www.sdsdw.org.

Jun 042013
 

Grant writes:

Hi….you will like this one Sandra …. the people actually won one. Read the short page (at the side)…the facts are as bizarre as the dental amalgam issue.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Sandra:

The images of thousands of citizen activists in the video made the chills run up my spine!   What a HUGE and successful effort – – against the million dollars that the industry and its supporters spent to force fluoridation of Portland’s water supply.  Way to go Portland!!

– – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – –

Major Victory as Portland, Oregon Votes NO on Water Fluoridation

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/04/fluoride-free-portland.aspx?e_cid=20130604_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130604   

– – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – –

An earlier posting, also with good information:   Fluoridation – At Any Cost, Dr. Hardy Limeback.

 

 

Jun 012013
 

NOTE:  this posting is not yet complete, I haven’t sent it around.  Some of the info in it needs to be accessible,  I will complete it when I’m able.

– – – – – – – – –  – – – – —

We have work to do.  Please blast this around the universe!

But ESPECIALLY, find:

  • people who work at Universities (professors, administrators, Boards of Governors, Faculty Councils, University Senates, students, support staff)

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = =

CONSIDER:

The Alliance to Feed the Future  has been formed, 50 industry groups.  Monsanto is at the helm.  It’s role is to create propaganda for the media, politicians, farmers and other citizens:  GMO food is good for you and the Planet.

 

WHO often generates the material for the chemical/GMO industry?   I am sorry to say, but here it is:

From the March Against Monsanto (MAM), May 25, 2013, Saskatoon SK:

– – – – – – – – – – – –

WHAT SUGGESTS THAT UNIVERSITiES WILL SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GMO CORPORATIONS (ALLIANCE TO FEED THE FUTURE)?

  • recently established Global Institute for Food Security at the University of Saskatchewan (link to info that includes Board of Directors)
  • the new Wheat programme at the U of S   (link to info)
  • 12 University presidents now on the SPP  (link to)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

WHAT’S AT STAKE?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

WHAT TO DO?

Make sure people at the University know

  • Alliance for the Future of Food is a creation of the chemical/biotech corporations for the promotion of GMO food.  Its interests are closely aligned with the industry’s lobbyists, CropLife.  The resistance to Monsanto/GMO food is swelling.
  • The industry uses the University to credential young people who become the propagandists for the industry.

The Putin article spells out the situation with GMO/chem agriculture.  It has to be stopped.   It means speaking with the elephant in the room, the University.

There ain’t nobody who is going to do it for us!

 

One of the first things I want to do is track down Marianne Williamson.  Her speech at the March Against Monsanto was just excellent.   I’d like to add the Unversity connection to her radar screen.  She doesn’t mention it.  2013-05-27  What comes next?   March Against Monsanto.  Marianne Williamson speaks. 

UPDATE:   Done!  And a reply received.  See the preceding link.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

HOW TO MOVE THE UNIVERSITIES

  • Give them a reason to change
  • Support the work on campus for good food  (there are lots of people dedicated to good food, but the money is funelled to GMO/chem agriculture — witness the Global Institute for Food Security at the University of Saskatchewan).  (link)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO (MAM), OCTOBER 12th, 2013, IN YOUR COMMUNITY

If there isn’t one,  set one up.  (how to)

If there is one, join it now and tell/invite all your friends.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

BE LIKE HUNGARY

2013-05-23  Hungary won’t tolerate GMO seeds, burns 1,000 acres of corn

Insist that the Government burn GMO crops that have not been approved.    2013-05-29   Monsanto’s GMO Wheat growing in Oregon.  Not approved.  USDA investigating.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 KNOW THE NAMES

  • Monsanto
  • Syngenta
  • Bayer Crop Science
  • Dow
  • CropLife (the lobby machine for the industry)
  • the Alliance for the Future of Food
  • Global Institute for Food Security, University of Saskatchewan

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

OFFICIAL MAM WEBSITE

OFFICIAL MAM FACEBOOK GROUP

 

Jun 012013
 

NOTE:

  1. The title of the research referred to below is  Pre-clinical Evaluation of Resin Sealing on Amalgam Microleakage in Primary Class I Molars. 

Dave writes:

“microleakage” refers to leakage that occurs between the tooth and the filling when these fillings get older.  It isn’t referring to mercury gassing off.  As micro-leakage occurs there is a greater risk of decay between the filling and tooth. These leakages are sometimes repaired by using composite to seal them over.

Also note the language:  microleakage.  It’s equivalent to the phrase “Depleted Uranium (DU)”  to describe very radioactive, toxic material.

– – – –  – – – – – – – – –  – – –

Hi Sandra……one of my customers / friends sent this to me. …

Grant,

Thanks for the info on this – very interesting to see some of the other material from IAOMT besides what you had told me.  You can bet I will be doing more Internet research!  I will be fwd’g this to my dentist too – no sure what kind of reaction that will have… 

Interestingly enough, I found a fall newsletter from the University of SK Dental College with a reference to amalgam microleakage being investigated by two third year students, though I can’t seem to find any details.  They both should be well established dentists now – wonder what they found out?  It also makes you realize that the dental world darn well knows about this… 

http://www.usask.ca/dentistry/alumni/pdf/Recall_Nov08.pdf

Ashley Fidyk & Marie Hawreluik (Supervisor: Dr. A. Koneru)

Pre-clinical Evaluation of Resin Sealing on

Amalgam Microleakage in Primary Class I Molars

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

NOTE (Sandra speaking):   I entered “leakage” and did a  “search” on the Newsletter, in order to find the reference to the “amalgam microleakage being investigated”.

Jun 012013
 

http://dogwoodinitiative.org/blog/BC-Enbridge-recommendation

Lots of people, particularly eastern pundits, were surprised by B.C. Premier Clark’s decision to formally reject Enbridge’s oil tanker and pipeline proposal to ship Alberta crude oil through B.C. to China and other Asian markets.

We weren’t.

Why? Simply because its good politics.

I’ll explain.

Premier Clark has staked her political future on rapidly ramping up Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports from B.C. It was the centerpiece both of her jobs plan and the cash cow that would help her claw her way out of significant budget deficits.

Anything but a strong NO to Enbridge would have raised the ire of northern First Nations and communities – those whom she quickly needs to appease to fast track her LNG plans. Simply put, a YES to Enbridge would have – as UBC Prof George Hoberg recently said – unleashed a backlash of civil disobedience unprecedented in our province’s history, as well as potentially spurred a citizen initiative similar to the HST referendum, which could seriously derail her government’s priorities.

The second reason is that despite what some eastern pundits may claim, pro-oil tanker and pro-pipeline positions are politically toxic in B.C. What’s been lost in the myriad of opinion editorials claiming the tanker issue is what cost the NDP the election is the fact that Christy Clark campaigned on ‘Standing up for BC.’ Her ‘protect B.C. against Alberta and Ottawa’ rhetoric served her well in the elections campaign, insulating her from what was substantively a weaker policy position than the NDP.

Also lost in the media coverage so far is the fact that not one MLA was elected who had a pro-oil tanker or pro pipeline position:

MLA’s who opposed or raised serious concerns about oil tanker proposals = 85

MLA’s who supported oil tanker proposals = 0

Despite the rejection, backed by a thorough and compelling technical submission, there were aspects of the B.C. government’s news release that raise concerns. The repeated use of the phrase “as presented to the Joint Review Panel” to qualify their rejection raises the possibility of some post-review secret deal. These weasel words, combined with Minister Lake’s comments yesterday after a meeting in Alberta where he said he saw a “path to Yes,” raises questions about the possibility of further negotiations between Clark’s government, Alberta, Ottawa and Enbridge outside of public process.

It is true: Ottawa could still try pushing through an approval for Enbridge while relying on promises to make the project better after the review. However, the public process is now over, so this would mean any changes Enbridge might make to their proposal would presumably be evaluated behind closed doors. After the HST backlash, it would be political suicide for either Harper or Clark to make backroom changes to their position on such a controversial proposal.

Another problem with a backroom, post-review deal with Ottawa and Alberta is that it would completely undermine the JRP process as well as future review processes. Why would 1,161 people make oral presentations to the JRP or why would interveners waste countless hours reviewing testimony and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers if proposals can get revised and approved post-review through backroom negotiations? This approach would open up more legal and political risks than it would solve. Imagine what would happen to the upcoming regulatory review of the Kinder Morgan proposal if Victoria and Ottawa bring out the gaffers tape and approve Enbridge post review?

Another reason Clark’s opposition to Enbridge isn’t a surprise is that by all accounts she is a federal Liberal at heart. After the largest perceived election comeback in Canadian history, Clark is in a strong position to play hardball with Harper. Clark successfully cozied up to Tory-aligned interests to unify the so-called ‘Free Enterprise’ vote before and during the election, but insiders indicate it was always a forced marriage. Most of her closest advisors – including her ex-husband who’s rumoured to be on the short list as Justin Trudeau’s point man in B.C. – align with the Grits and not the Tories.

Given the massive opposition from across the political spectrum – Dogwood Initiative alone has more than 150,000 No Tankers supporters – and the federal Liberals long-standing opposition to the expansion of oil tankers in B.C. (going all the way back to Justin’s dad), the Liberal brand is enhanced by a firm NO position and a face-off with Harper.

In fact, polls suggest ‘Standing Strong Against Oil Tankers’ is perhaps the best issue in B.C. to differentiate Grits from the Tories and rebuild support for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Given the collapse of the provincial Conservatives, her unexpected comeback, her deep political ties to the Grits and her desire to fast track LNG, Clark’s decision to reject Enbridge as it stands makes a great deal of political sense.

May 312013
 

Yeeeay!   http://www.ir-d.dk/gmo-lose-europe-victory-for-environmental-organisations/

 

THERE ARE 2 SHORT VIDEOS OF INTERVIEWS WITH THE MONSANTO SPOKESPERSON AT THE ABOVE LINK. 

In the 2nd video the journalist pushes hard on the question of why the results of the GMO corn field trials  are not available to the public.

 

By:

Investigative Reporting Denmark

Monsanto will halt production of genetically modified corn in all of Europe, except Spain, Portugal and Czech republic. The agribusiness multinational states not to spend any more money on trials, development, marketing, court cases or anything else to get GM corn accepted in Europe.

Touch the GMO Maize

Former Danish minister of Agriculture and Food, Eva Kjer Hansen from The Liberal Party, Venstre, announced on September 16th 2009 the start of Monsantos three trials with GMO maize resistent to herbicide Round-Up (NK 603) in Denmark.

She told the press in 2009 that in three years time Denmark could face acceptance of GMO crops and that a lot of farmers would be growing it. She invited journalists on a road trip and let them touch the GMO maize in the trial field in Tystofte near the Danish city Skælskør.

 

Even more trials

Two years later, in January 2011, Monsanto expanded these two years of examination with an additional year of testing, which was accepted by the Danish Environmental authority, Miljøstyrelsen.

The procedure is that crop companies’ new crops will be tested by the authority for two years before possibly being allowed for selling and growing in Denmark. At the time, Monsanto wanted to test a total of five different varieties with the transformation NK603.

Trial results are normally open to the public. In this case Monsanto explicitly asked to keep the test silent, and they withdrew the varities before the testing finished, so no results were published.

No information has then been released on these trials.

 

Fighting for access to trial results

Investigative Reporting Denmark has, together with an organisation for openness, Åbenhedstinget, asked for access to the results. It turns out the trials failed in the second year. On the 1st of February 2011 the authority stated that the GMO crops could not be allowed on the basis of the trial results of the first two years. The authority recommended one more year of trials.

The new maize crop resistant to Round-Up only performed 97 pct. compared to traditional maize for the two test years in total, the authority (Plantedirektoratet, Afdeling for Sortsafprøvning, Fagudvalget) writes. It also warns for the harmful effect of the herbicide Round-Up and concludes that the most realistic outcome is that the crop will not be allowed for growing in Denmark.

Monsanto cancelled the different crops from growing trials on different times. The last was cancelled on the 1st of February 2012. By doing that Monsanto could keep the failure out of the public domain.

Authorities support Monsanto on silence

The authorities have – after more than two months consideration – decided to follow Monsanto’s wish to keep the trial results silent.

Key documents in the FOI-case.

The main argument is that publication of the trial results would have an economically harmful effect on the company, despite the fact that the crops did not pass the trial.

Investigative Reporting and Åbenhedstinget together raise the case for The Danish Ministry of Agriculture. From a scientific viewpoint and for the use in other countries it is necessary to also get results of failed trials published, argue the two organisations.

“It is corrupting to the scientific method itself, when companies can decide that only positive results can be published. Therefore it is important to have this research published,” stresses Klaus Sall.

“This a good example of the need to require companies to accept free access to their GMO seeds, for scientific research, when the crop has been released for import to the EU as NK 603 has.”

Danish trial to be reported later 

Brandon Mitchener from Monsanto points to a webpage where trials are reported. The Danish trials will be reported there later this year. The actual data from the trials are not included in the reports.

“I cannot believe that any company would ever voluntarily disclose information that might be useful to its competitors. It’s unrealistic, even surreal, that anyone would expect us to. Laws already strike the proper balance between confidentiality and transparency,” says Brandon Mitchener.

The horse is dead.

Experts getting moved away from GMO

In September 2009 The Danish Ministry for Agriculture and Food published a 235 page report on in an attempt to revitalise the debate and have GMOs allowed in Denmark. This took place on the same day as the roadtrip for the press to trial fields.

The report was met with a heavy criticism in the public debate. Today the topic is closed.

”Currently no agribusiness companies have GM varieties under testing for registration at The AgriFish Agency anymore,” explains Kristine Riskær, head of the center for farming and plants in the Danish State Authority for Farming, NaturErhvervsstyrelsen, a branch under The Danish Ministry for Agriculture and Food.

 

 

 

 

 

May 302013
 

Anna Maria Tremonti interviewed an entomologist who explained the mechanics by which the insectides engineered into GMO plants (food grains) kill the insect pest.  2013-05-29  Rootworms and the Future of Genetically Modified Farming.  Anna Maria Tremonti, CBC Radio, The Current.

In eating the plant (corn, for example), the larvae ingests the built-in insectide which then kills the insect from inside;  the plant being eaten (the root of the corn plant in this example) makes holes in the digestive system of the larvae.

Independent of the entomologist, Dr. Elaine Ingham explains “the how” of GMO plants  ( 2013-05-19  Getting to the Root of how GMO Plants harm food production and Your Health):

. . . There’s very clear evidence of harm in animals that consume Bt plant material.  They end up with severe ulceration, starting in the digestive system. . ..” 

Dr. Ingham is saying what the entomologist said.

I recall listening to a video-taped interview with a farmer.  His livestock herd was decimated.  He figured out it was the GMO corn he was feeding to them – – same story as the entomologist and Dr. Ingham.  (The link is on this blog somewhere – I’ll try to find it.)

Why do we think that GMO ingredients will be health-giving to human beings?  when we know they kill other organisms?

If the average American eats 25 pounds of GMO corn a year (see below), I wonder if that’s enough to affect the internal workings of a human being?

The industry, its credentialing agency (the University) and the Governments deny that GMO foods have adverse health effects, in spite of research that says otherwise.

I think the gig is up.

 

A CLOSER LOOK AT GMO INGREDIENTS IN STORE-BOUGHT FOOD

Boycott food with GMO content, yes.

But you will simultaneously be eating food that provides your body with nutrients, instead of food that eats you!  (assuming that if GMO food eats holes in the inside of the larvae, it will do something similar to you, in sufficient quantity, and especially if your immune system is dealing with numerous toxins.)

The creators of the list of food producers to avoid (scroll down to the bottom of this posting) don’t explain how the list was compiled.  But I think you can figure it out:  the list is obviously of food producers that buy large volumes of GMO ingredients.   So,

  1. what are the largest volume GMO crops?
  2. what foodstuffs are made with those grains?

You know that large corporate producers of those foodstuffs will be using GMO ingredients.

People who live in North America would not know that those foodstuffs contain GMO ingredients, simply because GM food is not required to be labelled in Canada or in the USA.   (Labelling IS required in Europe.)

To answer question #1 (the largest volume GMO crops?), I found U.S. information easily.  It is useable for our purposes (Canadian) – most of these store-bought foods are imported into Canada.

When you look at the foods that contain GMO ingredients (question #2, what foodstuffs are made with those grains?), it is easy to see that yes, the list of food producers to boycott makes sense.

So,

1.   WHAT ARE THE LARGEST VOLUME GMO CROPS?

Two sources combined:

yield these results:

CORN:

Corn is the No. 1 crop grown in the U.S. and nearly all of it — 88 percent — is genetically modified. In addition to being added to innumerable processed foods, genetically modified corn is a staple of animal feed.

The National Corn Growers Association reports that each  American consumes 25 pounds of corn annually. The crop is fed as ground grain,  silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends  up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly  (e.g. high fructose corn syrup).

SOYBEANS:

93 percent of soy is genetically modified. Soy is a staple of processed foods under various names including hydrogenated oils, lecithin, emulsifiers, tocopherol (a vitamin E supplement), and proteins.

Soybeans rank second, after corn,  among the most-planted field crops in the U.S. Over 279,110 (2007 Census of Agriculture) farms in the U.S. produce soybeans  making the U.S. the largest producer and exporter of soybeans, accounting for  over 50% of the world’s soybean production and $3-4 billion in soybean and  product exports in the late 2000s. Soybeans represent 50 percent of world  oilseed production.

Soybeans are used to create a variety of products,  the most basic of which are soybean oil, meal, and hulls. According to the  United Soybean Board, soybean oil, used in both food manufacturing and frying  and sautéing, is the number one edible oil in the U.S.  Currently, soybean oil represents  approximately 65 percent of all edible oil consumed in the United States, down  from about 79 percent in 2000 due to controversy over trans-fat.

Yikes!   FOOD THAT CONTAIN SOY    see http://www.neisd.net/foodserv/HTML/documents/FoodAllergens13Jan09.pdf

NOTE:  The list of foods that contain soy at the link above and

the list of foods that contain canola oil (below)

have both been constructed for people

who have severe allergies to soy / canola.

Which is interpreted:  they are allergic  to GMO soy and GMO canola because that’s what it is.

Makes you wonder how many people are not well, maybe because they don’t know they are allergic to these ingredients in their food.  They might also be allergic to GMO corn.

The over-arching statement might be:  GMO food makes people sick.

QUESTION:

  • Are people “allergic to” canola and soy (see below)  – – which implies that THEY have a problem   OR
  • Do GMO canola and GMO soy (and GMO corn?) make people sick? – – that is, the problem is THE FOOD, not the people.

But back to the point:

 

CANOLA:

About 90 percent of the U.S. canola crop is genetically modified. Canola oil is used in cooking, as well as biofuels.

Canola oil is used in the fast food industry for deep frying (MacDonald’s, etc.)

 

FOODS THAT CONTAIN CANOLA – WILL BE GMO CANOLA

THE FOLLOWING LIST WAS COMPILED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLERGIC TO CANOLA OIL. 

(In my books, “allergic to” means that the food makes them sick. ) 

http://www.cantola.com/Tricky_Foods.html

Some foods almost always contain canola oil, and some foods seem like they wouldn’t have any oil at all, yet contain canola. For example:

  • Peanut butter. Unless it’s “natural,” it will almost always contain canola oil (usually labeled as “rapeseed oil”). Some safe brands: Adam’s, Laura Scudder’s, Safeway’s O Organics, and Skippy Natural.
  • Frozen French fries/tater tots/onion rings . Everything that falls near the “frozen potato” category almost always contains canola. Ore-Ida onion rings, however, are safe, and all frozen potato products from the 365 Everyday Value brand at Whole Foods are also canola-free.
  • Salad Dressing. I would estimate that 50-75% of all salad dressings on the market contain canola oil. Just a guess, but it is awfully common in salad dressings. Even the fat free ones. Some safe brands: We recommend that you start your label reading at either Kraft or the Safeway store brand, or just make your own salad dressing. Those are the two that rarely use canola. Everyone else is even more of a gamble.
  • Salsa. Salsa is one of those that shouldn’t have any oil, one would think, but make sure you read the labels, because a couple of brands do actually contain canola oil.
  • Chocolate syrup. Seriously, some syrup brands contain “vegetable oil.” Be careful.
  • Rye bread. I don’t know why almost every brand of rye bread in the world is made with canola oil, but it’s really hard to find one that isn’t.
  • Citrus-flavored soda. “Bromiated vegetable oil.” Beware the Dew. And many other sodas that have a citrus flavor.
  • Oreos. Here’s an interesting one: if the Oreos are chocolate coated, or white fudge coated, or basically dipped in anything, they do not contain canola oil. All other Oreo varieties have canola. And while we’re at it, remember to stay away from all things Nutter Butter.
  • Pretzels. I don’t know why so many hard pretzel brands contain canola, but they do. Read labels carefully.
  • Mayonnaise. “Canola mayo” is the hot new trend in mayonnaise. I would guess that half of the brands of mayo out there use canola. Best Foods and Kraft don’t use canola.
  • Bread and butter pickles. We’ve never encountered a dill pickle that had canola, but sometimes the bread and butter pickles do. Watch out.
  • Mustard. Very, very, very rare to see one with canola oil, but it does happen. I think I’ve seen more salsas that contained oil than I have mustards, but read the labels, just in case.
  • Birdseed. If you have birds, read the labels for their food very carefully, as some of them contain “rapeseed,” and the rapeseed can get all over your house and in the air. As a general rule: don’t buy birdseed at a grocery store. Go to Petsmart for the least chance of rapeseed, and Petco for another low chance.
  • Granola bars/cereal bars, etc: It’s hard to find these without canola/rapeseed, etc. Quaker 90 calorie chewy chocolate chunk granola bars are safe, as are Zone Perfect fudge graham bars, 100 calorie Chips Ahoy bars, and Odwalla Super Protein bars. There are probably other safe ones, but reading all of the labels gets a little tiring, so those are the few that we currently stick to.
  • Cereal: Another product that’s very hit-or-miss. Probably a solid 75% of all cereals out there have canola/rapeseed, etc. If you’ve known about this allergy for any length of time, you’ve probably already said goodbye to Honey Bunches of Oats. As to other cereals, though: if a generic one that you like has canola, try the name brand, and if the name brand has canola, try the generic. They rarely both do. If you’re in a situation such as a hotel breakfast bar, however, where you can’t read labels, just stick to fruit.
  • Vegetarian foods: Thank you to Alison for pointing out that most, if not all Amy’s frozen foods are canola-free. Of course, Morning Star is usually chock-full of canola, though Alison points out that the Chik-n nuggets are not. She also says that most Cedar Lane products have canola, but the quesadillas do not. Boca’s a better bet than Morning Star for most meatless things, as Morning Star has canola in probably 90% of their foods, while I’d guess Boca is closer to two-thirds or so.
  • Chips/crackers: A lot of these have canola. The best way to know which ones is simply to read the labels. Kettle Chips are generally okay, as are many, if not most Lay’s. Most Cheez-its contain canola except usually the child-oriented ones, such as Spongebob-shaped cheez-its, possibly because they have stricter ingredient standards for food marketed to children. In these sorts of foods, there are usually huge variations in ingredients within the same brand, in their different varities – one flavor of a brand of cracker will have canola, but a different flavor of the same brand won’t. So you have situations where some Wheat Thins are okay, while others aren’t, and you simply have to read the labels. And also, saltines can be surprisingly difficult to find without canola.
  • Bread: I would say that most bread you buy in a store will not have canola, provided that it is not rye bread, which strangely almost always has canola. That is not to say that no other bread will have canola, though. It does happen, and you need to read labels. One brand that has been consistenly safe for years now is Sara Lee. I don’t know that I’ve ever come across a loaf of Sara Lee that had canola. If I’m in a hurry at the store, that’s where I begin my label-reading, and it always works out. King’s Hawaiian, Milton’s, and Wonder Bread are usually pretty safe, too.
  • Pizza: When it comes to frozen pizza, I know that Red Baron varieties almost never, if not never ever, contain canola. And honestly, I can’t tell you much about the others, because frozen pizza isn’t exactly a meal that you buy when you’re in the mood to sit around and read a bunch of packages. We head straight to the Red Baron, find something, and skedaddle. We’ve glanced at Totino’s and CPK long enough to know that you have to read through those brands pretty carefully. Safeway’s O Organics line also seems to be canola-free. And, as long as we’re on the topic of pizza, ordering a pizza is usually pretty dangerous. Canola is often in the crust. If it’s not from a chain that specifically names their ingredients, it’s probably best to avoid the pizza. Stick to the big names.
  • Tortillas: Thank you so much to Alison for pointing out tortillas as another tricky food! I do need to thank her for pointing out all of these new foods, in fact, but tortillas are one I find especially aggravating, and I can’t believe I forgot about them, with as much as I complain about them! The only advice I have here is to read every label, every time.
  • Bakery foods: My advice on this is to avoid the bakery section in the grocery store. Everything from cookies to baguettes are likely to contain canola, and I’m pretty sure that the tastier something looks, the more canola it will contain.
  • Margarine: Blue Bonnet and Imperial 1/3 Less Fat are two that we know to be safe.
  • Lunch meat: It’s relatively rare for lunch meat to contain canola, in the sense that it happens much less frequently than it does in, say, peanut butter, but more often than it does in mustard or salsa. And of course the one time you don’t read labels will be the time it happens to you, so be careful!
  • Diet / nutritional shakes / bars: Read labels carefully. Almost every single one of these contains canola oil.
  • Garlic salt: Why, I don’t know, but it’s very difficult to find garlic salt that is canola-free.
  • Movie theater food: Just avoid it. Especially the popcorn. Reactions have been known to happen just by walking past the concession stand.

 

SUGAR BEETS:

More than half — 54 percent — of sugar sold in America comes from sugar beets. Genetically modified sugar beets account for 90 percent of the crop; however, that percentage is expected to increase after a USDA’s decision last year gave the green light to sugar beet planting before an environmental impact statement was completed.

 

SO NOW TAKE A LOOK – DOES THIS LIST MAKE SENSE? 

FOOD PRODUCERS TO AVOID?

http://www.realfarmacy.com/printable-list-of-monsanto-owned-food-producers/

In light of the recent public anger over the Monsanto Protection Act, here’s a simple, printable lis…

(Or, on facebook):   Printable List of Monsanto Owned “Food” Producers

 

 

May 302013
 

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/05/russia-warns-obama-global-war-over-bee-apocalypse-coming-soon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEuropeanUnionTimes+%28The+European+Union+Times%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

The shocking minutes relating to President Putin’s meeting this past week with US Secretary of State John Kerry reveal the Russian leaders “extreme outrage” over the Obama regimes continued protection of global seed and plant bio-genetic giants Syngenta and Monsanto in the face of a growing “bee apocalypse” that the Kremlin warns “will most certainly” lead to world war.

According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.

At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.

So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these “bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.

Two of the most feared neonicotinoids being banned are Actara and Cruiser made by the Swiss global bio-tech seed and pesticide giant Syngenta AG which employs over 26,000 people in over 90 countries and ranks third in total global sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market.

Important to note, this report says, is that Syngenta, along with bio-tech giants Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and DuPont, now control nearly 100% of the global market for genetically modified pesticides, plants and seeds.

Also to note about Syngenta, this report continues, is that in 2012 it was criminally charged in Germany for concealing the fact that its genetically modified corn killed cattle, and settled a class-action lawsuit in the US for $105 million after it was discovered they had contaminated the drinking supply of some 52 million Americans in more than 2,000 water districts with its “gender-bending” herbicide Atrazine.

To how staggeringly frightful this situation is, the MNRE says, can be seen in the report issued this past March by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) wherein they warned our whole planet is in danger, and as we can, in part, read:

“As part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.

ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds,” reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.

“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird,” Palmer said. “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid — called imidacloprid — can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”

The new report concludes that neonicotinoid contamination levels in both surface- and ground water in the United States and around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates.”

Quickly following this damning report, the MRNE says, a large group of group of American beekeepers and environmentalists sued the Obama regime over the continued use of these neonicotinoids stating: “We are taking the EPA to court for its failure to protect bees from pesticides. Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an agricultural system in trouble.”

And to how bad the world’s agricultural system has really become due to these genetically modified plants, pesticides and seeds, this report continues, can be seen by the EC’s proposal this past week, following their ban on neonicotinoids, in which they plan to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with the European Union, and as we can, in part, read:

“Europe is rushing towards the good ol days circa 1939, 40… A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the “EU Plant Variety Agency.”

It’s called the Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.”

 

This MRNE report points out that even though this EC action may appear draconian, it is nevertheless necessary in order to purge the continent from continued contamination of these genetically bred “seed monstrosities.”

Most perplexing in all of this, the MRNE says, and which led to Putin’s anger at the US, has been the Obama regimes efforts to protect pesticide-producer profits over the catastrophic damaging being done to the environment, and as the Guardian News Service detailed in their 2 May article titled “US rejects EU claim of insecticide as prime reason for bee colony collapse” and which, in part, says:

“The European Union voted this week for a two-year ban on a class of pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, that has been associated with the bees’ collapse. The US government report, in contrast, found multiple causes for the collapse of the honeybees.”

To the “truer” reason for the Obama regimes protection of these bio-tech giants destroying our world, the MRNE says, can be viewed in the report titled “How did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s man in Washington?” and which, in part, says:

“After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA: At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center. As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.”

Even worse, after Russia suspended the import and use of an Monsanto genetically modified corn following a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage this past September, the Russia Today News Service reported on the Obama regimes response:

“The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week – including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.”

On 26 March, Obama quietly signed this “Monsanto Protection Act” into law thus ensuring the American people have no recourse against this bio-tech giant as they fall ill by the tens of millions, and many millions will surely end up dying in what this MRNE report calls the greatest agricultural apocalypse in human history as over 90% of feral (wild) bee population in the US has already died out, and up to 80% of domestic bees have died out too.

 

 

 

May 302013
 

CBC RADIO

The Current | May 29, 2013 | 24:28

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/ID/ID/2388310871/

Rootworms and the Future of Genetically Modified Farming

Genetically modified cornseed was supposed to be resistant to the dreaded rootworm. But in parts of the U.S. Midwest, corn farmers are discovering the very problem that GM crops were supposed to eliminate are back in the corn.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

EXCERPT FROM RELATED POSTING:

A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food

In eating the plant (corn, for example), the larvae ingests the built-in insectide which then kills the insect from inside – – it makes holes in the digestive system of the larvae.

If the average American eats 25 pounds of GMO corn a year (below), I wonder if that’s enough to affect the internal workings of a human being?

May 302013
 

The battle to stop the introduction of RR Wheat (GMO) has waged for years.   Our network did a lot of work on it around 2004.  I don’t have a lot of the information we circulated posted yet.

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2013/05/usda-investigates-monsanto-gmo-wheat-on-oregon-fa.aspx

WASHINGTON—Genetically-modified wheat plants were found on a farm in Oregon, triggering a government investigation because the crops had not been approved for commercial production or sale. Further testing indicated the wheat was the same variety that Monsanto Company had been authorized to test in 16 states from 1998 through 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced today.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) said the wheat, which had been engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate, did not present a food-safety concern.

“We are taking this situation very seriously and have launched a formal investigation,” said Michael Firko, acting deputy administrator for APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services, in a statement. “Our first priority is to as quickly as possible determine the circumstances and extent of the situation and how it happened. We are collaborating with state, industry, and trading partners on this situation and are committed to providing timely information about our findings. USDA will put all necessary resources towards this investigation.”

Monsanto, the agricultural bioengineering company, said it would work with USDA to investigate the situation, but it underscored that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) verified more than a decade ago that its Roundup Ready wheat was safe.

“This is the first report of the Roundup Ready trait being found out of place since Monsanto’s commercial development program was discontinued nine years ago,” Monsanto said in a statement. “Our process for closing out the Roundup Ready wheat program was rigorous, well documented and audited.”

Should a wrongdoer in APHIS’ investigation be found to have violated the Plant Protection Act, it could face civil penalties of up to $1 million and criminal prosecution, the agency said.

The wheat discovery was brought to the attention of APHIS by an Oregon State University scientist who sampled the crop after a farmer detected glyphosate-resistant wheat that had not been intentionally planted.

“We have no reason to believe at this time that the farmer who reported the presence of glyphosate-resistant GE wheat volunteers in his field has committed any infraction,” APHIS said.

In its statement May 29, Monsanto noted USDA had not provided the company details regarding its testing or samples necessary to verify the agency’s findings.

“We will work with USDA to confirm their test results and as they consider appropriate next steps. We will also conduct a rigorous investigation to validate the scope of and to address any presence of a Monsanto Roundup Ready event in commercial wheat seed,” Monsanto said.

USDA’s announcement represented another setback for Monsanto, which recently learned that the agency plans to conduct environmental reviews in connection with the company’s request to deregulate soybean and cotton that are resistant to certain herbicides.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://grist.org/news/illegal-monsanto-gmo-wheat-found-in-oregon/

Illegal Monsanto GMO wheat found in Oregon 

By John Upton

A farmer in Oregon found a patch of wheat growing like a weed where it wasn’t expected, so the farmer sprayed it with the herbicide Roundup. Surprisingly, some of the wheat survived.

The startled farmer sent samples of the renegade wheat to a laboratory, which confirmed something that should have been impossible: The wheat was a genetically engineered variety that had never been approved to be grown in the U.S., nor anywhere else in the world.

From The New York Times:

The Agriculture Department said the wheat was of the type developed by Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate. Such wheat was field-tested in 16 states, including Oregon, from 1998 through 2005, but Monsanto dropped the project before the wheat was ever approved for commercial planting.

The department said it was not known yet whether any of the wheat got into the food supply or into grain shipments. Even if it did, officials said, it would pose no threat to health. The Food and Drug Administration reviewed the wheat and found no safety problems with it in 2004.

Still, the mere presence of the genetically modified plant could cause some countries to turn away exports of American wheat, especially if any traces of the unapproved grain were found in shipments. About $8.1 billion in American wheat was exported in 2012, representing nearly half the total $17.9 billion crop, according to U.S. Wheat Associates, which promotes American wheat abroad. About 90 percent of Oregon’s wheat crop is exported.

It’s not clear when the discovery was made. In a statement on its website, Monsanto said it was contacted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding its investigation “earlier this month.” The USDA announced the discovery on Wednesday and said nine investigators are trying to figure out how the freak wheat wound up growing on the unnamed farmer’s land. Reuters reports that there were eight field trials of Monsanto’s GMO wheat in Oregon from 1999 to 2001.

While the federal government and agriculture industry scramble to investigate and manage fallout from the escaped wheat strain, there is one company that doesn’t seem too concerned. You can guess who that might be. From a statement posted on Monsanto’s website:

Over the past decade, an annual average of 58 million acres of wheat have been planted in the United States. This is the first report of the Roundup Ready trait being found out of place since Monsanto’s commercial wheat development program was discontinued nine years ago. …

Accordingly, while USDA’s results are unexpected, there is considerable reason to believe that the presence of the Roundup Ready trait in wheat, if determined to be valid, is very limited.

 

Well, if it’s “very limited,” then, I suppose there’s no need for concern. Try telling that to America’s wheat trading partners.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The Wheat Growers are scrambling, understandably:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/us-wheat-associates-and-nawg-statement-response-us/nX6Sc/

U.S. Wheat Associates and NAWG Statement Response to USDA Announcement

. . .   Nothing is more important than the trust we’ve earned with our customers at home and around the world by providing a reliable supply of high-quality wheat. As industry leaders, we will cooperate with authorities in the United States and international markets to understand the facts surrounding this incident and help minimize its impact.

We appreciate our customers standing with us while we monitor the investigation, and we will share additional information as soon as it becomes available.