(NaturalNews) On September 21, a California federal district court found that the USDA’s 2004 approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated GMO sugar beets without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. Plaintiffs in the case, filed in January 2008, include the Center for Food Safety, the Organic Seed Alliance, the Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds.

Failing to account for cross-pollination of the GMO seeds with nearby fields of conventional and organic varieties was one of many unreasonable deficiencies cited by the court in the original USDA approval of the crop. Plaintiffs in the case are also emphasizing in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate the continued pandering to the likes of Monsanto by the USDA. The USDA’s job is to protect America’s growers, farmers, and consumers, not multinational corporations who patent genetically-altered seeds.

When Monsanto originally began marketing its “Roundup Ready” GMO sugar beet seeds, it enticed farmers with promises that the crops could be doused with herbicide up to five times a year without killing the crop. What it failed to disclose was the potential for entire crop fields to be cross-contaminated with genetically modified seeds, devastating the availability of untainted conventional and organic crops. The environmental impact of using GMO seeds is tremendous and could wipe out the non-GMO crops entirely.

Another issue not addressed by APHIS is the fact that continual applications of glyphosate, the herbicide marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, has led to the growth of Roundup-resistant weeds commonly referred to as “superweeds”. Similar to antibiotic “superbugs” that become resistant to antibiotics, these superweeds require ever-increasing amounts of not only Roundup but other more potent, toxic herbicides just to keep them under control. There are currently millions of U.S. land acres that are infested with superweeds.

An independent analysis of USDA data by the former Executive Director of the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Agriculture, Dr. Charles Benbrook, has revealed some startling information. Between 1996, when “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered crops were first introduced, and 2004, herbicide use in the U.S. has increased by 138 million pounds.

A 2008 study conducted at the University of Caen in France found that Monsanto’s Roundup concoctions triggered the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro. The dilution levels used in the study were far below the recommendation levels used in agriculture and were meant to replicate the amount ingested due to residue left on food.

Despite the tremendous victory this case represents, there is still the unfortunate reality that the lead defendant in the case was USDA head Thomas Vilsack, an Obama hand pick who heavily supports genetic engineering. Other appointments to top USDA positions under the Obama administration include many former Monsanto executives, perpetuating the Bush-era legacy of revolving-door politics that favors corporate agribusiness and GMOs at the expense of food freedom and consumer protection.

In his ruling, Judge Jeffrey S. White has scheduled a meeting on October 30 to deliberate the remediation phase of the case that may include injunctive relief against the use of GE sugar beets.

Sources:

Victory! Court Finds USDA Violated Federal Law by Allowing Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets on the Market – The Center for Food Safety

Genetically Engineered Sugar Beet Approval Illegal, Judge Rules – Environment News Service

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells – American Chemical Society

Genetically Engineered Crops, Obama Administration, USDA: Food Politics – gourmet.com

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/027209_USDA_sugar_beets.html#ixzz1aw6nhCrc

The Basics:

What’s a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (80-85%), corn (85%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand). About half of the sugar beets grown for sugar in 2008 were GM and current projections are that about 90% grown in 2009 will be GM.

What are other sources of GMOs?

Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. Also:

• meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed (and the majority of the GM corn and soy is used for feed);
• dairy products from cows injected with rbGH (a GM hormone);
• food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses; and
• honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.

The Health Dangers:

What are the potential dangers of eating GM foods?

There are a number of dangers that broadly fall into the categories of potential toxins, allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems.

View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith’s comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Other References

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

• Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
• Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
• Jellyfish genes lit up pigs’ noses in the dark.
• Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
• Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
• Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/biotech/290820090926_gmos_in_foods.html

In a word, yes. To learn more, read on.

Mention the word organic and many people immediately see dollar signs. They may understand that organic products are grown without pesticides, are not genetically modified, and do not come from chemically fertilized fields. But they may not realize what those words really mean and certainly still do not understand or realize the added health benefits of eating this cleaner, more nutritious food. Mention organic milk or dairy products and the average consumer will cringe. That’s because organic dairy products typically cost a significant amount above conventional dairy and people still do not understand that there is more to think about than just the cost of the product.

According to an article in the New York Times from earlier this year, there is a glut of milk. This, obviously, affects the price paid to the farmer and ultimately the price paid for the product. In this economy many people welcome the slowly lowering price of dairy products. The difficulty comes from not understanding the difference between the types of products available. Conventional milk comes from cows who are confined to feedlot operations, crowded and not given access to fresh pasture. They are also still fed products that are pesticide, herbicide and drug laden as well as having genetically modified organisms (GMO) in their food. They may also be given large amounts of antibiotics. Natural milk comes from cows who are not given growth hormone (which increases their production of milk) however all the other conventional practices apply from crowding in feedlots to chemicals and GMO feed. Organic milk comes from cows who have none of the above. They are required to be pastured for at least part of the day and to have clean feed and a clean environment. This costs more and is part of the reason for the increased cost of the end product.

Dean Foods has now taken over a well-respected organic brand, Horizon. They are planning to change their production process and offer a “natural” product line aimed at young children. Dean Foods claims that this natural product will be less expensive and that they are providing a service to help consumers. The question is with a well-known, well-respected, profitable organic label already on the market why are they trying to adulterate the brand?

Unfortunately Dean’s previous foray into tampering with a well-respected organic brand, Silk organic soy milk, did not go well. According to an article found in the Organic Consumers Association newsletter Dean switched from organic, USA-grown to Chinese-sourced conventionally grown soy beans, relied on the name, and charged the same price. All without mentioning anything to consumers or retailers. In fact many of the retailers only noticed when their customers began to complain. Not only did Dean not lower the price of their reformulated “natural” soy products, they then turned around and raised the price on the organic soy that they were producing. One wonders how long it will be until they try the same profiteering methods with Horizon dairy. It is one way of increasing profits in the face of a glut of product.

In the end it all comes back to remaining vigilant and concerned about what you eat. Read the labels. That point is so important it bears repeating. Read the labels. Because you never know when a profit hungry huge agri-business producer will attempt to capitalize on brand identity to make a change that negatively affects your food and your health.

For more information:

Why chose organic milk
Organic Consumers Association

Vaccination Hazards

Many medical practitioners and researchers have broken away from the “medical mafia” with courageous efforts at disclosing the truth. But most others are still in denial, and sometimes even unethical. According to a June 4. 2009 London Times article, disclosures from several scientists have confirmed suspicions that many scientists within the medical research community fudge reports by omitting detrimental facts or even faking data to obtain conclusions that satisfy their sponsors.

Here are some comments from just a few of those courageous medical experts with integrity. More comments from other experts can be reviewed via the source links or urls.

Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD, author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills among other books, suggests that a single vaccine can cause brain damage for two years and five vaccinations would massively increase the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. Len Horowitz, a most thorough medical investigator states, “Casually substituting vaccination for immunization mystifies the masses. Immunization is not man-made toxin-injection. It is the natural body-guarding response to foreign proteins and germs, the most lethal of which have been transmitted to humanity through contaminated vaccines and blood supplies.”

Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, “. . . the only safe vaccine is one that is never used.”

In his article Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines, Dr. James Howenstine, MD, cites an episode where a Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 19 hours of a DPT immunization. Then he studied 70 cases of SIDS. Two thirds of these victims had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None were attributed to vaccines by the medical establishment or the mass media.

From Dr. Boyd Haley, professor and chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky: “A single vaccine given to a six pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180 pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day.” “You couldn’t construct a study to show that thimerosal (mercury in vaccines) is safe. It’s just too damn toxic”.

From a website promotion for a DVD entitled Shoot ‘Em Up the Documentary, comes this information. “Did you know that we give children 23 viruses before they reach the age of 5? Did you know autism skyrocketed after the addition of more vaccines on the mandatory schedule and did you know that these vaccines contain thimerosal, which is ethyl mercury?” By the way, mercury is considered more toxic than lead and second in toxicity only to uranium.

Most vaccines are cocktails of pathogens from cultures derived from aborted fetuses or animal tissues. Thimerersol or ethyl mercury is not the only additive or preservative. Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD, lists the ingredients common to vaccines, with some of her own comments, including, “If children receive all recommended vaccines, they will receive many times the supposed ‘allowable safe limit’ for mercury in the first two years of life.

Additional ingredients include antibiotics, aluminum gels, formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate (MSG), aluminum “which when combined with silicon deficiency and fluoride, results in the neurofibrillary tangles seen in Alzheimers disease, formaldehyde, MSG,” a potent neurological excitotoxin which, like aspartame, can cause seizures, brain tumors, etc.

Dr. Rima goes on: “Squalene, a response enhancer or adjuvant, is present in many modern vaccines and is highly irritating to the immune system. . . . (used in) Anthrax vaccine in Gulf War I soldiers is believed by many to be a primary cause, along with depleted uranium, of the devastating condition known as Gulf War Syndrome”.

An investigative journalist, Joe Vaills, now deceased, did a report on his website that disclosed a simple observation. The French troops from Gulf War I did not experience Gulf War Syndrome, and they were the only ones who did not receive Anthrax vaccinations!

What if the toxic materials are removed from vaccines? Many health experts point out the problem with bypassing the body’s immune system by injecting antibodies. Dr. Rebecca Carley, MD explains, “All mammals . . . contain secretory IgA, an antibody which initiates the natural God given immune response within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting organisms into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself.”

Dr. Vernon Coleman says, “My own view is that vaccinations are unsafe and worthless.”

Dr. Robert W. Simpson, of Rutgers University, warned that “immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps and polio may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form provirus’s which will then become latent cells throughout the body … they can then become activated as a variety of diseases including lupus, cancer, rheumatism and arthritis.”

Dr. Viera Scheibner concluded that “there is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side effects.”

Jonas and Darrell Salk warned in Science magazine of March 4, 1977 that “Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance produce the disease it intended to prevent, (and) the live virus against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain damage).”

Conclusion

A second article with solutions and remedies for enforced and covert vaccines is forthcoming.

Make up your own mind regarding vaccinations. Whatever your choice, it is unfair to force mass vaccinations. If you get a vaccination, it should immunize you from those of us who don’t if it works, right?

Motives offered for these mass inoculations include the obvious profit motives and the less popular depopulation agenda. You can do your own research starting with the source links (urls). There has been too much suppressed information that cannot be included within the confines of this one article.

LOTS MORE…
http://www.naturalnews.com/026434_vaccines_vaccination_vaccinations.html

GOVERNOR SEBELIUS MUST VETO KANSAS LEGISLATION

By Jeffrey Smith
April 23, 2009

NewsWithViews.com

According to studies acknowledged by the FDA, milk from treated cows has higher levels of pus, antibiotics, growth hormone, and Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). It is the IGF-1 that has the medical community up in arms. The American Nurses Association called for the elimination of rbGH in dairy production. The past president of the American Medical Association urged hospitals to serve only rbGH-free milk (over 160 hospitals have pledged to do so). And schools nationwide are banning the drugged milk as well.

Cancer link to milk hormone

IGF-1 is a risk factor for cancer. A Lancet study showed that pre-menopausal women below age 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. A study in Science found that men with high IGF-1 levels are four times more likely to get prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Is this the end of artificial growth hormones in milk?
Examiner.com – March 3, 2009

Are you worried about the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone in milk? If so, General Mills and Dannon are listening. The two giant food companies (General Mills took in $13.7 billion last year) have announced plans to discontinue their use of milk produced with rBGH.

This is huge: together, they represent about two-thirds of the American dairy market. General Mills makes Yoplait yogurt while Dannon makes several different yogurt products, including Activia and Danimals, which is geared toward children.

“This is largely a result of our contact with consumers – when they call or write to us we react to what they have to say,” a Dannon representative told Meatprocess.com. “We estimate that more than 70 percent of our milk is already coming from cows that are not treated with rBST,” said Becky O’Grady, General Mills’ vice president of marketing for the Yoplait brand, in a press release. “We are committed to reaching 100 percent no later than August.”

Recombinant bovine growth hormone has been at the center of controversy since it first hit the market in 1994, and – until now – Elanco, the company that now manufacturers and distributes the drug, estimates that one third of American dairy cattle are subject to its use. Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly, purchased the rights to the drug from its developer, Monsanto Corp., in 2008 for more than $300 million.

Since then, Posilac as its known commercially, has been linked – although not conclusively – to everything from breast cancer to udder infections in cows. Actually, the udder infections are quite conclusive: use of rbGH almost inevitably means farmers have to pump their cows with antibiotics to fight off the infections that plague the cows after they’ve been injected with the stuff. Those same antibiotics end up in the milk supply which is then consumed by humans – you, dear reader – contributing to antibiotics resistance among the bacteria that infect us. Let’s not even mention the pus and other goop that ends up in the milk supply as a result of milking sick cattle.

Consumers Union, via Common Dreams, September 18, 2008

Statement of Consumers Union
WASHINGTON – September 18

Consumers Union finds it “incomprehensible” that the FDA will not require labeling of genetically engineered animals that are sold as food. Genetically engineered animals may contain genetic material from entirely different species. For example mouse genes have been put into pigs to help them metabolize phosphorous more efficiently, and spider genes have been put into goats so that they produce spider silk in their milk.

FDA proposed today that they will only review genetically engineered animals for their safety as food, and will not require any labeling. “It is incomprehensible to us that FDA does not view these animals as different from their conventional counterparts, and therefore something that under law is required to be labeled,” stated Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “In our view, consumers have a right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying come from pigs that have been engineered with mouse genes.”

Consumers Union is also concerned that cows engineered to produce antibiotics in their milk, which can help the cow avoid udder infections, also will not be labeled. “Unlike conventional antibiotics, which must be cleared from the cow before it can be used to produce milk or meat, the antibiotic that is genetically engineered into the animal will always be present. We are concerned both about the potential safety and lack of labeling on such food products,” stated Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at Consumers Union.