Saturday, May 26, 2012


Dear Organic Consumer,

We're almost there.

By midnight tomorrow, May 26, 2012, we need to raise $1 million for the California right to Know GMO labeling Campaign so we don't miss out on a $1 million matching gift.
Time is running out, so I'll keep this short.
If we all pitch in to help California pass this historic law to require mandatory GMO labeling, it's only a matter of time before all of us, in every state in the US, will finally be able to know if the food we buy contains genetically engineered ingredients.
Big Biotech and Big Food oppose this law. And they are backed by Big Money. Lots of it. Money they've accumulated by poisoning our food and our planet. They've already promised to spend $60 million to convince consumers not to pass this GMO labeling law.
With public opinion on our side, we don't need $60 million. But we need at least several million dollars to stand our ground.
Several million honest dollars, raised by honest organizations, honest companies and honest people like you who are fed up with being fed junk.
We can do this - with your help. With just one day left, we need about $100,000. We're counting on small donations of $5, $10, $20 to get us there.

Every dollar counts! Please donate today and tell Monsanto: We have the right to know if our food contains GMOs. Thank you!
For an Organic Future,

Ronnie Cummins
Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

P.S. All money raised for this campaign will go through the Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic ConsumersAssociation, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action. Donations are not tax-deductible. 


African Voices Join With UK Farmers: GM (genetic modification) Is a False Solution to Hunger 

- May 25, 2012 - On Sunday 27th May in Rothamsted Park, in addition to UK farmers and growers, Take the Flour Back will host voices from the Global South reaffirming their rejection of GM (genetically modified crops/livestock). Graciela Romero, International Programmes Director of UK development charity ‘War on Want’ and Gathuru Mburu, coordinator of the ‘African Biodiversity Network’, will speak on the global fight for control of our food supply.

Nathan Jones from Take the Flour Back says “We are delighted Mburu and Graciela are able to join us on Sunday, the voices of the people at the sharp end of the food system are rarely heard in the mainstream, but resistance to GM is global, and driven by bitter experience.” Mburu is visiting the UK for the launch of Seeds of Freedom ( a new film narrated by Jeremy Irons, exploring how large companies gain control of seed markets through use of genetic modification.
Mburu, who coordinates the African Biodiversity Network will be explaining that:
“Experimenting with staple crops is a serious threat to food security. Our resilience comes from diversity, not the monocultures of GM. Beneath the rhetoric that GM is the key to feeding a hungry world, there is a very different story – a story of control and profit. The globalisation of food markets has led to growing hunger, and the unrelenting greed of corporations who see the huge financial potential in controlling the global food system. The fact is that we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”.
Under fire on a Five Live debate with Take the Flour Back this morning Prof. Huw Jones of Rothamsted Research continued to try and claim that the trial would never lead to patented products. This flies in the face of his own colleague, Prof. John Picket's announcement in Farmers Weekly last November that “it could be that we generate very good intellectual property for commercial development... That’s the long term plan”.
Graciela Romero Vasquez, War on Want’s International Programmes Director, says:

“War on Want supports the ‘Take the Flour Back’ campaign and the right to protest. We support the call to stop the GM wheat research at Rothamsted and any investment in genetically modified (GM) seeds. The UK government is providing £1.28 million from taxpayers’ money to this GM research. If it is successful, it will benefit private businesses and do nothing to reduce global hunger. The lead researchers from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have openly admitted their hopes for commercial success, even though this would mean agrochemical giants abusing their market dominance to push farmers into buying their packages. Hundreds of thousands of small-scale farmers have been driven to commit suicide precisely because of the burden of the debt incurred by buying such packages. The only way to stop the global hunger scandal and to feed the world’s population is by the realisation of the food sovereignty framework.”
May 25, 2012
5:39 PM
07968 776 066


corruption 235x147 Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks Frances Ban on Monsantos GMO MaizeBlatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France’s Ban on Monsanto’s GMO Maize

Anthony Gucciardi
May 24, 2012
Just after France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.
That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing and startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.

One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?
It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.
Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA was a leading employee of Monsanto?


health benefits of honey 235x147 Health Benefits of Honey   Natures Powerful SuperfoodHealth Benefits of Honey – Nature’s Powerful Superfood

Mike Barrett
May 24, 2012
Honey has long been among the top superfoods used to treat countless health conditions and boost overall health. Similar to how the benefits of apple cider vinegar range far and wide, honey can be used to help treat an array of health issues experienced daily. This amazing bee-product possesses antibacterial, antifungal, antiseptic, and antioxidant properties – making it one of the most beneficial foods to consume. Here are some of the health benefits of honey that you can experience today.

Health Benefits of Honey – A Handful of Uses

Allergy Protection - Although there is some debate as to whether honey can effectively combat allergies, many individuals do attest to honey’s allergy-fighting ability. Honey has been utilized as an alternative and natural allergy treatment for many years, with many allergy sufferers swearing by its antiallergenic properties. One study found that the use of local honey resulted in a 60 percent reduction in symptoms for birch pollen allergy sufferers. If honey doesn’t suffice for you, don’t hesitate to implement one of many other available home remedies for allergies.

All-Natural Antibiotic, Heals Wounds - Used as a mighty superfood for centuries, and as a solution for infections up until the 20th century, honey has long been utilized for its antibacterial properties. One study published in the journal Microbiology found that honey prevented a type of streptococcus pyogenes from inhibiting the healing of wounds. Researchers conducting the lab tests found that even the smallest amount of honey was enough to kill off the majority of bacterial cells on the skin which infects the wound site. Honey could even be utilized to prevent wounds in the first place.
Other research shows how honey could be a potent answer to drug resistant bacteria like MRSA. In fact, some researchers have come to the conclusion that honey could even be more effective than antibiotics in many cases after examining how the superfood can prevent and fight serious skin infections. After a skin injury like a cut or a scrape, bacteria can penetrate the wound site and cause problems, but scientists have found that honey can destroy such bacteria, as long as its the right kind.
Honey can even painlessly remove pus, scabs and dead tissue from wounds and stimulates new tissue growth.
Soothes Coughs and Eases Colds - Perhaps among the most enjoyed health benefits of honey, the superfood can be used to soothe coughs or ease colds. A mixture of fresh lemon juice and raw honey provides soothing relief for sore throats and helps stop the tickle that stimulates coughing. Raw honey — with all its components including royal jelly, propolis and bee pollen — is high in nutrients and enzymes which kill bacteria and viruses. Children given just a little bit of honey before bed often sleep better and cough less than if given nothing. Don’t forget about honey when searching for home remedies for cough.
Further adding on to the health benefits of honey, the food:
  • Increases calcium absorption.
  • Can increase hemoglobin count and treat or prevent anemia caused by nutritional factors.
  • Can help arthritic joints.
  • Works as a natural and gentle laxative, aids constipation.
  • Provides instant energy without the insulin surge caused by white sugar.
  • Contains a wide array of trace minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium, copper, chromium, manganese and selenium, which are critical for healthy cellular insulin sensitivity and blood sugar balance. This superfood does have an effect on blood sugar and contains approximately 53% fructose, so one should only consume this in moderation.
Although honey can be a fantastic health-boosting tool, using the wrong kind of honey may give you the health benefits of honey you expect. A study conducted for Food Safety News shows that at least 75% of the honey sold in the US is actually not real honey, according to Food and Drug Administration standards. In order for honey to be deemed “honey” in the United States, the honey must contain pollen as it naturally would. While the FDA has a strict rule on what is and what isn’t considered real honey, they actually don’t bother to check the honey sold, and so many people are consuming fake, nutrient-depleted honey. The simplest potential solution to this problem would be for you to purchase honey at your local natural health food store, or obtain your honey from a local beekeeper if at all possible.
Begin experiencing the health benefits of honey today with some amazing bee products that cure and protect.
Additional sources:

Read more:

Friday, May 25, 2012


Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times
Using her own stickers, Cynthia LaPier surreptitiously labels foods that she knows contain genetically modified organisms.

GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — On a recent sunny morning at the Big Y grocery here, Cynthia LaPier parked her cart in the cereal aisle. With a glance over her shoulder and a quick check of the ingredients, she plastered several boxes with hand-designed stickers from a roll in her purse. “Warning,” they read. “May Contain GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms).”
Labeling GMO Groceries                                                                                                                 Jim Wilson/The New York Times
In San Francisco, a gathering of supporters of a California ballot proposition requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled.

For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory. Regulators and many scientists say these pose no danger. But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating, popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated.
Labeling bills have been proposed in more than a dozen states over the last year, and an appeal to the Food and Drug Administration last fall to mandate labels nationally drew more than a million signatures. There is an iPhone app: ShopNoGMO.
The most closely watched labeling effort is a proposed ballot initiative in California that cleared a crucial hurdle this month, setting the stage for a probable November vote that could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture.
Tens of millions of dollars are expected to be spent on the election showdown. It pits consumer groups and the organic food industry, both of which support mandatory labeling, against more conventional farmers, agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto and many of the nation’s best-known food brands like Kellogg’s and Kraft.
The heightened stakes have added fuel to a long-simmering debate over the merits of genetically engineered crops, which many scientists and farmers believe could be useful in meeting the world’s rapidly expanding food needs.
Supporters of labeling argue that consumers have a right to know when food has been modified with genes from another species, which they say is fundamentally different from the selective breeding process used in nearly all crops.
Almost all the corn and soybeans grown in the United States now contain DNA derived from bacteria. The foreign gene makes the soybeans resistant to an herbicide used in weed control, and causes the corn to produce its own insecticide.
“It just makes me nervous when you take genetic matter from something else that wouldn’t have been done in nature and put it into food,” said Ms. LaPier, 44, a mental health counselor whose guerrilla labeling was inspired by the group Label It Yourself. She worries that her daughter, 5, could one day suffer ill effects like allergies.
The F.D.A. has said that labeling is generally not necessary because the genetic modification does not materially change the food.
Farmers, food and biotech companies and scientists say that labels might lead consumers to reject genetically modified food — and the technology that created it — without understanding its environmental and economic benefits. A national science advisory organization in 2010 termed those benefits “substantial,” noting that existing biotech crops have for years let farmers spray fewer or less harmful chemicals, though the emergence of resistant weeds and insects threatens to blunt that effect.
In a letter circulating on social networks, one Iowa farmer, Tim Burrack, criticized this month’s O, the Oprah Magazine, which cited research linking genetic engineering to health concerns that many scientists have discredited and proposed “5 Ways to Lessen Your Exposure to GMO’s.” Mr. Burrack urged Ms. Winfrey not to “demonize GM crops.”
But some food experts argue that food manufacturers have an obligation to label. Consumers “have a right to take genetic modification into consideration,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “And if the companies think consumer objections are stupid and irrational, they should explain the benefits of their products.”
Until now, Americans have made little fuss about genetically modified crops on the market compared with Europeans, who require that such foods be labeled. Demonstrators in Britain are threatening to destroy some genetically modified wheat being grown in a research trial near London.
The current push for labeling in this country stems in part from a broadening of the genetically modified menu to include herbicide-resistant alfalfa and the possible approval this year of a fast-growing salmon, which would be the first genetically engineered animal in the food supply.
Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms, the organic yogurt company, has raised more than $1 million for the Just Label It campaign to influence the F.D.A. after fighting approval of engineered alfalfa, arguing that cross-pollination would contaminate organic crops fed to cows.
“This is an issue of transparency, truth and trust in the food system,” Mr. Hirshberg said.
Biotechnology companies say that the California labeling initiative, while portrayed as promoting consumer choice, is really an effort by some consumer and environmental groups and organic food growers to drive genetically modified foods off the market.
“These folks are trying to use politics to do what they can’t accomplish at the supermarket, which is increase market share,” said Cathleen Enright, an executive vice president at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents Monsanto and DuPont.
Rather than label food with what consumers might regard as a skull and crossbones, the companies say food producers may ultimately switch to ingredients that are not genetically modified, as they did in Europe.
If the California initiative passes, “we will be on our way to getting GE-tainted foods out of our nation’s food supply for good,” Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in an letter in March seeking donations for the California ballot initiative. “If a company like Kellogg’s has to print a label stating that their famous Corn Flakes have been genetically engineered, it will be the kiss of death for their iconic brand in California — the eighth-largest economy in the world — and everywhere else.”
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents major food brands, declined to comment on what members would do if the California measure passed. But Rick Tolman, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association, said after meeting with food executives this month that he had the “strong impression” that they would rather reformulate their ingredients than label their products genetically engineered. “They think a label will undermine their brand,” he said.
When asked if they wanted genetically engineered foods to be labeled, about 9 in 10 Americans said that they did, according to a 2010 Thomson Reuters-NPR poll.
The current call for transparency has resonated among some Americans upset by reports of BPA (a chemical used in plastics) in food packaging and pink slime (an ammonia-treated additive) in meat. Ms. LaPier has made an effort to label Kashi cereals, which advertise themselves as natural, since learning they contain genetically modified soy. Since discovering the Label It Yourself Facebook page in March, she has added several of her own pictures to its gallery of handmade labels on grocery store shelves across the nation.
Depending on the jurisdiction, such labeling could constitute a trademark violation against the manufacturer or a trespass against the store. No one has been prosecuted, but also, no one has been caught, according to a spokesman for the group.
So far, the F.D.A. has said only that it is studying the labeling petition; none of the state-level labeling bills proposed over the last year have passed.
For labeling proponents, California, where the Legislature would be bypassed by a direct popular vote, is the big prize.
A decade ago in Oregon, a similar measure that appeared to have the support of two-thirds of voters was rejected after a last-minute spending blitz by labeling opponents. With the financial backing of the organic industry, labeling supporters in California say they will be better prepared.

Thursday, May 24, 2012


Pesticide Action Network Updates
Pesticide drift data spotlights serious gap in EPA rules
There's rules, and then there's reality
Grassroots science is about on-the-ground realities. Minnesota communities are breathing a harmful potato pesticide, and EPA’s rules don’t adequately address this.

Take Action
EPA missed the boat on chlorothalonil. This nearly-impossible-to-pronounce pesticide, widely used in conventional potato fields throughout the country, is in the air people in neighboring communities breathe every summer. And chlorothalonil is known to be particularly toxic when inhaled.
Yet EPA’s safety standards — so far — are primarily based on how much of the pesticide people eat, not what they breathe. It doesn’t make sense.
Match rules to reality, please» EPA is rethinking its rules on chlorothalonil — and that’s a very good thing. Please join us in urging the agency to set safety standards based on documented, on-the-ground exposures.
The reality/rules gap was in the spotlight last week, as communities in central Minnesota used grassroots science to measure the invisible problem of pesticide drift. When they used PAN’s Drift Catcher to monitor the air in potato-growing regions of the state, chlorothalonil showed up more than 60% of the time.
When chlorothalonil is ingested (as residue on foods, for example), it is considered “slightly toxic to non-toxic.” But it’s considered “highly toxic or acutely toxic” when inhaled.
“EPA has a responsibility to stand up for the health and well-being of families like ours,” says Norma Smith, a member of Minnesotans for Pesticide Awareness and participant in the community Drift Catcher project.
Reality-based safety rules» EPA’s pesticide rules should reflect real-world uses, exposures and potential alternatives, not models that balance theoretical risks against pesticide industry profits. Tell EPA to get it right on chlorothalonil.
Thank you so much for standing with rural communities.


Plastic Bag / Ramin Bahrani

Los Angeles Largest U.S. City to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

- Common Dreams staff
Los Angeles has become the biggest city in the U.S. to enact a ban on single-use plastic bags.
The Los Angeles City Council passed the measure Wednesday by an overwhelming 13-1 vote.
A fraction -- only about 5% -- of the over two million plastic bags used in Los Angeles are recycled.
Writing in NRDC's Switchboard blog, Adrian Martinez states that this is a "landmark step toward protection of our environment and important for the legacy for future generations."
Hoping the measure was only the start of environmental awareness, Councilman Richard Alarcon said, "Let's not stop with plastic bags."
* * *
Withstanding a strong lobby from the plastic bag industry, the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a ban on single-use plastic bags at checkout counters as well as a 10-cent fee on paper bags.
With a population of 4 million -- and using an estimated 2.7 billion plastic bags each year -- Los Angeles becomes the largest city in the U.S. to enact a ban and joins 47 other cities in California alone.
* * *
Adrian Martinez on NRDC's Switchboard blog:
Disposable plastic bag ban passes LA City Council
.... The framework includes a six month educational period of the ordinance where no ban is in place. After that initial six months, larger stores must phase out single use plastic bags. Twelve months after adoption of the final ordinance, small stores will also ban these bags. For paper bags, retailers will be required to charge 10 cents per bag starting one year from today. In two years, a study will assess whether to ban outright paper bags as well. The City Council still needs to approve a final ordinance, including analyzing the environmental impacts of this policy, but it is my understanding that this will happen quickly.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012


Don’t Put Monsanto in Charge of Ending Hunger in Africa

This past weekend, President Obama hid out from protesters at Camp David. He was hosting the leaders of the world’s eight wealthiest economies, known as the G8. As they readied to meet, on Friday, Obama put forward his New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.(Image: Tim Robinson / The Nation)
This occasion gave Rajiv Shah, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development, the chance to make an astonishing statement:
“We are never going to end hunger in Africa without private investment. There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.”
That’s news to millions of women farmers in Africa. Their harvests feed their families and generate income that sustains local economies. For generations, they have been doing just those things: storing their harvests, protecting and developing seeds, using natural fertilizers.
Smallholder women farmers save and exchange seeds that help keep local crops viable. They demonstrate how to adapt to climate change by adjusting planting cycles, experimenting with new drought-resistant crops and more. They produce crucial food supplies using the small-scale, organic methods that are increasingly recognized as vital to the health of the planet—and everyone who lives on it.
There are differences, of course. Unlike big companies, small-scale women farmers do not grab millions of acres of land for monoculture plantations that destroy local biodiversity. They do not develop the terminator seeds that hold farmers hostage to the seed patent rights of corporations. They are not the inventors of chemical fertilizers that worsen climate change.
Those honors belong to the very companies that President Obama is inviting to oversee Africa’s food security. We know that their primary goal is not anybody’s food security but their own bottom line. That’s why it’s governments, and not corporations like Monsanto, that should bear responsibility for funding and developing agriculture. It is simply not true that only companies can build silos and develop seeds and fertilizers.
President Obama anticipated these criticisms when he addressed “whether this New Alliance is just a way for governments to shift the burden onto somebody else.” He was quick to assure that, even in hard economic times, his administration would continue to make investments in development aid. Let’s make sure that those investments work to prioritize the right to food over corporate profits.
Because here’s the truth: we’re never going to end hunger in Africa without upholding the rights of smallholder women farmers who feed the continent and care for its ecosystems.
Yifat Susskind
Yifat Susskind is the Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She has worked with women’s human rights activists from Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa to create programs in their communities to address women's health, violence against women, economic and environmental justice and peace building. She has also written extensively on US foreign policy and women’s human rights and her critical analysis has appeared in online and print publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy in Focus and The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women, published by the Feminist Press in 2004. Ms. Susskind has been featured as a commentator on CNN, National Public Radio, and BBC Radio.

Sunday, May 20, 2012


GMO Alert: Startling New Research

18th May 2012
Contributing Writer for Wake Up World
Time for a little GMO update and heckling of our nemesis, Monsanto and friends. New research demonstrates what most of us have suspected for years: GMOs and the poisons used on them are bad for everything on the planet. For ethical reasons, as well as the obstruction of research by Monsanto, little comprehensive GMO research has been done on humans. But finally, we are beginning to see more hard evidence showing the dangerous effects of the GMO industry.
A little over a year ago, the journal Reproductive Toxicology published the results of a study done In Quebec, Canada. It showed that Bt toxin, the pesticide now routinely genetically engineered into GE corn and cotton, was found in the blood of pregnant women and in their fetuses, as well as in non-pregnant women. This same study also discovered that glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, was found in the blood of non-pregnant women. This is not good news.

Until recently, the Quebec study has been one of the few pieces of sound scientific evidence demonstrating the absorption of Bt-toxin into human blood, an occurrence Monsanto reportedly claimed would not occur when they proposed their nasty little invention for approval some years ago. Are we surprised that they were proven wrong? Not at all. Does this stop them? Not in the least. So we have to. Read on.
 A brand new scientific study now shows that the Bt-toxin, known as Cry1Ab toxin, kills human embryonic kidney cells. If you think this is alarming, there’s more. The study also shows that combining Bt-toxins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac with RoundUp (as is now commonly done on GMO crops) can delay apoptosis, which can promote cancer. Apoptosis, by the way, is the normal and natural death of cells that occurs as a routine and controlled part of an organism’s growth or development. This study also found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, on its own causes necrosis, a.k.a. the death of tissue, in amounts lower than that used in agriculture.
I imagine that everyone reading this article adores ladybugs, also known as ladybeetles. Ladybugs have a shiny red shell with little white polka dots on them and cute little black heads. They are in my orchard here in Hawaii and sometimes they randomly land on me while I am working or walking around. These magical little creatures are often employed for natural pest management in organic gardens and orchards, with no side-effects, mind you!
Well, guess what? The GMO industry is killing our ladybugs. Yet another scientific study shows that Bt-toxin increases the mortality rate (death rate) of infant ladybugs, known as larvae. This research was conducted at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.
Onto honeybees, our other beloved insect friends. It is widely believed that pesticides in general, and particularly a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, are a major contributing factor to CCD, or Colony Collapse Disorder, of honeybees worldwide. Some countries in Europe have already banned them; namely France, Germany, and Italy. The hundreds of millions of extra pounds of pesticides sprayed on pesticide-dependent GMO crops are also believed to be contributing to the very sad fate of honeybees. I don’t like Big Ag messin’ with the bees or the ladybugs.
So, if you are not yet on the bandwagon to stop supporting GMOs and their destruction of so many aspects of our biosphere, please jump on. Don’t buy GMO foods. Especially, don’t feed them to your children. Don’t use RoundUp, ever. Or any pesticides, fungicides or herbicides, for that matter. And please join GEM, our movement to eradicate GMOs from the face of the Earth, and learn more about dismantling the GMO machine. Bless the bees, ladybugs and each and every innocent human being on the planet now being impacted by GMOs. Bless you for taking action. From the farm here on Big Island, Hawai’i…thank you for being part of the solution.
About the Author
Jack Adam Weber is a licensed acupuncturist, master herbalist, author, organic farmer, celebrated poet, and activist for Earth-centered spirituality. He integrates poetry, ancient wisdom, holistic medicine, and depth psychology into passionate presentations for personal fulfillment as a path to planetary transformation.


zucchini.jpgMonsanto Owned Seednames

First of all, Monsanto or nobody else can actually OWN these varieties of seed.  This is a a move by Monsanto to secure the names only.  It does not stand to reason that any crop of these varieties growing today or anytime in the future will be genetically modified in any way.
If you are the type of gardener who purchases vegetable seeds or seedlings, including tomato plants from a local garden center, be mindful the varieties you choose. Conversely, you might be placing money into the hands of Monsanto Corporation. Below is the list of Seminis / Monsanto home-garden vegetable variations.
Print this list, and keep a copy in your wallet. Don’t be caught off guard the next time you impulse shop at a big-box garden center.
The seed varieties you have obtained as “heirlooms” from heirloom or organic seed companies are “NOT” GMO seeds, even though they are officially “owned” by Monsanto. As far as we know, the only GMO vegetable seeds available for sale today are new hybrid varieties of zucchini and summer squash, so be sure you order these from certified organic suppliers.
Please understand that Monsanto only owns the trademark names for these “heirloom” varieties. This stretegic move holds two advantages for Monsanto:
1.) prevents new companies from naming new varieties with these or very similar names.
2.) it is an effort to stop lucrative sales by these other companies trying to leverage the heirloom name and consumer loyalty for those heirloom varieties.
If you have left over seeds, do not be reluctant to plant them. Monsanto will only profit from customers purchasing these varieties from companies that are stocking seeds obtained directly from Monsanto or one of its distributors.
Beans: Aliconte, Brio, Bronco, Cadillac, Ebro, Etna, Eureka, Festina, Gina, Goldmine, Goldenchild, Labrador, Lynx, Magnum, Matador, Spartacus, Storm, Strike, Stringless Blue Lake 7, Tapia, Tema
Broccoli: Coronado Crown, Major, Packman
Cabbage: Atlantis, Golden Acre, Headstart, Platinum Dynasty, Red Dynasty
Carrot: Bilbo, Envy, Forto, Juliana, Karina, Koroda PS, Royal Chantenay, Sweetness III
Cauliflower: Cheddar, Minuteman
Cucumber: Babylon, Cool Breeze Imp., Dasher II, Emporator, Eureka, Fanfare HG, Marketmore 76, Mathilde, Moctezuma, Orient Express II, Peal, Poinsett 76, Salad Bush, Sweet Slice, Sweet Success PS, Talladega
Eggplant: Black Beauty, Fairytale, Gretel, Hansel, Lavender Touch, Twinkle, White Lightening
Hot Pepper: Anaheim TMR 23, Ancho Saint Martin, Big Bomb, Big Chile brand of Sahuaro, Caribbean Red, Cayenne Large Red Thick, Chichen Itza, Chichimeca, Corcel, Garden Salsa SG, Habanero, Holy Mole brand of Salvatierro, Hungarian Yellow Wax Hot, Ixtapa X3R, Lapid, Mariachi brand of Rio de Oro, Mesilla, Milta, Mucho Nacho brand of Grande, Nainari, Serrano del Sol brand of Tuxtlas, Super Chile, Tam Vera Cruz
Lettuce: Braveheart, Conquistador
Melon: Early Dew, Sante Fe, Saturno
Onion: Candy, Cannonball, Century, Red Zeppelin, Savannah Sweet, Sierra Blanca, Sterling, Vision
Pumpkin: Applachian, Harvest Moon, Jamboree HG, Orange Smoothie, Phantom, Prize Winner, Rumbo, Snackface, Spirit, Spooktacular, Trickster
Spinach: Hellcat
Squash: Ambassador, Canesi, Clarita, Commander, Dixie, Early Butternut, Gold Rush, Grey Zucchini, Greyzini, Lolita, Papaya Pear, Peter Pan, Portofino, President, Richgreen Hybrid Zucchini, Storr’s Green, Sungreen, Sunny Delight, Taybelle PM
Sweet Corn: Devotion, Fantasia, Merit, Obession, Passion, Temptation
Sweet Pepper: Baron, Bell Boy, Big Bertha PS, Biscayne, Blushing Beauty, Bounty, California Wonder 300, Camelot, Capistrano, Cherry Pick, Chocolate Beauty, Corno Verde, Cubanelle W, Dumpling brand of Pritavit, Early Sunsation, Flexum, Fooled You brand of Dulce, Giant Marconi, Gypsy, Jumper, Key West, King Arthur, North Star, Orange Blaze, Pimiento Elite, Red Knight, Satsuma, Socrates, Super Heavyweight, Sweet Spot
Tomato: Amsterdam, Beefmaster, Betterboy, Big Beef, Burpee’s Big Boy, Caramba, Celebrity, Cupid, Early Girl, Granny Smith, Health Kick, Husky Cherry Red, Jetsetter brand of Jack, Lemon Boy, Margharita, Margo, Marmande VF PS, Marmara, Patio, Phoenix, Poseidon 43, Roma VF, Royesta, Sun Sugar, Super Marzano, Sweet Baby Girl, Tiffany, Tye-Dye, Viva Italia, Yaqui
Watermelon: Apollo, Charleston Grey, Crimson Glory, Crimson Sweet, Eureka, Jade Star, Mickylee, Olympia