GMO's: New Pathogen & Related Diseases

Latter-Day Luther Nails Troubling Thesis to GM Farm & Food Citadels   © 2011 – by Steven McFadden

            Photo: Don M. Huber, Ph.D.

After trucking across the high plains for five hours, and casting my eyes over perhaps 100,000 acres or more of winter’s still deathly gray industrial farmland, I came face to face with the newly famous Dr. Don M. Huber in the cave-dark meeting room of the Black Horse Inn just outside the American Heartland village of Creighton, Nebraska.
On the morning of March 24, along with about 80 farmers and Extension agents, I listened as Huber discoursed with erudition and eloquence upon industrial farming practices that may be impacting nearly every morsel of food produced on the planet, and that subsequently may also be having staggeringly serious health consequences for plants, animals, and human beings.
Huber is emeritus soil scientist of Purdue University, and a retired U.S. Army Colonel who served as an intelligence analyst, for 41 years, active and reserves. In Nebraska, he stood ramrod straight for three hours with no notes and spoke with an astonishing depth and range of knowledge on crucial, controversial matters of soil science, genetic engineering, and the profound impact of the widely used herbicide glyphosate upon soil and plants, and ultimately upon the health of animals and human beings.
Dressed in a conservative dark suit and tie, Huber set the stage for his presentation by observing that he has been married for 52 years, and has 11 children, 36 grandchildren, and a great-grandchild on the way. He then began his formal talk framed by a PowerPoint slide bearing a Biblical quote: “All flesh is grass.” – Isaiah 4:6. With this he emphasized the foundational reality that the biotech grains we eat, as well as the biotech grains eaten by cows, hogs, and chickens, are grown in vast herbicide-treated fields.

Martin Luther nails his theses to the church door.

For the domineering giants of industrial agriculture — multinational corporations, universities, and governments — Huber’s assertions about the impact of glyphosate, and the mounting scientific questions about GMO crops, may be as significant and disrupting as Martin Luther’s “heretical” act in 1517. That’s when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany to challenge the systemic problems in the almighty institutions of his era.
Luther disputed the claim that spiritual forgiveness from sins could be legitimately sold for money. Huber and other researchers say they are accumulating evidence that — along with the 2010 report of the U.S. President’s Cancer panel which bluntly blames chemicals for the staggering prevalence of cancers — raises profoundly challenging questions about the chemical and genetic-engineering practices of industrial agriculture. The challenge, if it holds up, has implications not just for agricultural institutions, but also for the primary food chain serving the Earth’s population.
Not an altogether new controversy, the complex matters of industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and the far-flung use of herbicides has been ominously and exponentially accentuated in the last year by virtue of its ominous context: last summer’s epic oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation-ripping 9.0 earthquake in Japan earlier this month, with its subsequent tsunami and nuclear meltdown which is contaminating the nation’s water and food chain, in combination with the statistical reality that on our planet of nearly seven billion people, over a billion human beings — one of every six of us — is hungry.
All of this was brought into prominent public focus — both sharp and fuzzy — in January of this year by the unlikely matter of alfalfa.

Challenges to the Web of Life

The seminar with Dr. Huber, sponsored by Knox County Extension and the Center for Rural Affairs, commenced on a somber note. The moderator announced that Terry Gompert, 66, a veteran Extension educator and respected advocate for sustainable agriculture, and a man who had played a key role in organizing the conference, had just suffered a massive heart attack.  A moment of silence followed before Dr. Huber began his presentation. Mr. Gompert died on March 25, the day after the conference.

Dr. Huber discusses food and safety concerns at the Black Horse Inn, Creighton, Nebraska. (Photo by S. McFadden)

At the conference, Huber’s talk was highly technical, yet he had easy command of voluminous detail. For many in the audience, it must have sounded like an alien language as he spun out the esoteric terms: zwitterion, desorbtion, translocation, rhizosphere, meristemic, speudomanads, microbiocidae, bradyrhizobium, shikimate, and more.
Huber spoke about a range of key factors involved in plant growth, including sunlight, water, temperature, genetics, and nutrients taken up from the soil. “Any change in any of these factors impacts all the factors,” he said. “No one element acts alone, but all are part of a system.”
“When you change one thing,” he said, “everything else in the web of life changes in relationship.”
That brought him to the subject of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide around the world, and a chemical most commonly recognized in the product named Roundup®. Because it is so widely used, Huber said, it is having a profound impact upon mega millions of farm acres around the world. More than 155 million acres of cropland were treated with glyphosate during the 2008 growing season, and even more by now. Subsequently, Huber said, this chemical is having a sweeping impact on the food chain.

He asserted that glyphosate compromises plant defense mechanisms and thereby increases their susceptibility to disease. He said that it reduces the availability and uptake of essential nutrients, and that it increases the virulence of pathogens that attack plants. Ultimately, Huber said, all of these factors reduce crop vigor and yield  (Yield Drag).
Most dramatically, Huber reported on what he described as a newly discovered pathogen. While the pathogen is not new to the environment, Huber said, it is new to science. This  pathogen apparently increases in soil treated with glyphosate, he said, and is then taken up by plants, later transmitted to animals via their feed, and onward to human beings by the plants and meat they consume. The pathogen is extraordinarily small. It can be observed only via an electron microscope operating at 38,000 power of magnification. The pathogen has yet to be phenotyped (descrubed)  or named, though that work is almost complete, Huber said. He specified that all the research and data would be published in a matter of weeks.
Huber warned that ignoring these emerging realities may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious.  He said it could also, and apparently already is, compromising the health and well-being of animals and humans.

The Stratosphere of Controversy

Alfalafa

What propelled Huber, glyphosate and biotech crops into the stratosphere of public attention earlier this year was a pending decision on alfalfa (hay) by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The “queen of forages,” alfalfa is the principal feedstock for the dairy industry. The USDA was being asked to approve unrestricted use of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, which could result in as many as 20 million more acres of land being sprayed with up to 23 million more pounds of toxic herbicides each year.
Because alfalfa is pollinated by bees that fly and cross-pollinate between fields many miles apart, the biotech crop will inevitably contaminate natural and organic alfalfa varieties.
Dr. Huber wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack asking for a delay in making the decision, and for the resources to do further research. In his letter, Huber raised questions about the safety of glyphosate. Huber’s letter also warned of the new pathogen, apparently related to the use of glyphosate, which appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. He said laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of the organism in pigs, cattle and other livestock fed these crops, and that they have experienced sterility, spontaneous abortions, and infertility.
“I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high-risk status,” Huber wrote. “In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.” Vilsack set Huber’s letter aside for later consideration, and on January 27 he authorized the unrestricted commercial cultivation of genetically modified alfalfa. Immediately thereafter, the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the USDA, charging that the agency’s approval of genetically engineered alfalfa was unlawful.
While Huber’s letter of warning was not intended for public consumption, it was leaked and immediately went viral on the Internet. In a matter of days Huber became a lightning rod, attracting intense attention from both the scientific community, and the general public, which is  understandably concerned about the genetically engineered food it has never wanted and — since GM food is unlabeled — never been able to identify. The prospect of a new and virulent pathogen sweeping through the food chain was profoundly unsettling
Meanwhile, researchers were deeply upset that they were not first notified by Huber of the new pathogen — as is customary — before the matter became public knowledge. They felt they had been blindsided. Huber says that his letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack was leaked, and thus its publication was not his doing.
Huber became the focus of tremendous pushback. His message of urgent concern and the need for delay until more research was completed was unwelcome in many corporate and university citadels, and was deemed heresy by some vested in the multi-billion dollar industry of GMO crops.
The biggest beef researchers have with Huber — who is well known in his field as a member of the American Phytopathological Society and as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System –  is that he has not yet made data available for scientific scrutiny. Many researchers, including some at Purdue, say Huber’s data and hypotheses, when studied, are not likely to hold up to peer review, and that in general his allegations are exaggerated.
When contacted for comment on Huber’s concerns, Monsanto, maker of Roundup ® (glyphosate) and producer of Roundup Ready® seeds, sent a link to a host of professional criticisms of Huber’s work as well as to their official corporate statement: “Independent field studies and lab tests by multiple U.S. universities and by Monsanto prior to, and in response to, these allegations,” the statement reads in part, “do not corroborate his claims.”

Consequences

Glyphosate is a particularly strong broad-spectrum toxin with the power to kill many kinds of plants that have been designated as weeds. As a chelator, or binder, glyphosate changes the physiology and thereby makes plants susceptible to plant pathogens. Roundup Ready® plants are tolerant of glyphosate because technology inserts a new gene. While the RR plants do not die after the toxic herbicide is sprayed over farm fields, the plants do suffer a reduced efficiency in some crucial regards, according to some researchers, changing the nutrient balance in plants. When that change occurs, all subsequent relationships — including the diet of livestock and humans — is changed.
The extensive use of glyphosate and the rapid, widespread use of GM crops resistant to it, have intensified the deficiencies of essential micronutrients, and some macronutrients. This is leading, Huber argues, to weaker and more disease-prone plants, animals, and people. In his presentation, he offered a list of about 40 diseases that, he says, tend to increase in farm fields where glyphosate is used. Those plant diseases include Sun Scald, Leaf Chlorosis, Tomato Wilt, Apple Canker, Barley Root Rot, Bean Root Rot, Wheat Take All, Wheat Head Scab, Wheat Glume, and Grape Black Goo.

Subsequently, he hypothesized, the decrease in nutrients and the increase in the new pathogen in food lead to empty calories, which likely explains increases in allergies, and chronic diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
The list of diseases that Huber suspects may be affected by glyphosate and the new pathogen is, he said, increasing as growers and pathologists recognize the cause-effect relationship:

• Increase in cancers of the liver, thyroid, kidneys, tests, and skin melanomas.

• Increase in allergic reactions in general, and an increase of up to 50% in soybean allergies in the USA in the last three years.

• Increase on an epidemic-scale in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, perhaps as much as 9,000% over the last 30 years. Specialists say they expect the incidence of Alzhiemer’s to spike far higher over the next four years.

• Increase in the incidence of Parkinson’s disease, which researchers say, is being provoked in part by the factor of chemical pesticides.

What Has Changed?

As if it were a mantra, during his three-hour talk Dr. Huber often raised a rhetorical question: What has changed?  If all of these troubling conditions are on the rise for plants, animals and humans in recent years, then what has changed to bring it about?
The most apparent change, he answered, is that glyphosate and genetically engineered plants are out widely in the world. According to Huber, farm animals, including cattle, pigs, horses and chickens that are fed GM crops grown on glyphosate-treated fields have shown an alarming increase in sterility, spontaneous abortions, and stillbirths. By way of anecdotal evidence, he said he gets two to three communications a week from farmers and veterinarians about this troubling phenomenon. “We can no longer ignore the increase in livestock infertility, stillbirths, and spontaneous abortions over the last three to four years,” he said.
GMO feed grown on glyphosate treated fields tends to irritate the stomach of livestock, such that many farm animals are fed daily rations of bicarbonate of soda in an attempt to sooth their stomach lining. Huber showed a slide bearing images of dissected hog stomachs; one from a hog fed GMO feed and the other conventional feed. The GMO hog had a rudely inflamed mass of stomach and intestinal tissue.
A handout from Dr. Huber that was made available at the Nebraska seminar cited 117 peer-reviewed scientific studies that raise serious questions about the impact of glyphosate. These studies have reached critical mass, Huber said, and they could no longer be discounted or ignored. Yet, there are also a substantial number of studies stating that glyphosate and GMO crops are safe and ought to be the cause of no concern.

What Is this Stuff?

Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in the USA. Every year, 5 to 8 million pounds are used on lawns and yards, and another 85 to 90 million pounds are used in agriculture. It is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially weeds known to compete with crops grown widely across the Midwest. Initially sold by Monsanto in the 1970s under the trade name Roundup®, its U.S. patent expired in 2000, and thus glyphosate is now marketed in the U.S. and worldwide in different solution strengths under various trade names. Because these products may contain other ingredients, they may have different effects.
Glyphosate inhibits a key enzyme that is involved in the synthesis of amino acids in the plant.  Many fungi and bacteria also have this same pathway. Aromatic amino acids in plants are the building blocks for many of their defense compounds.
Some crops have been genetically engineered to be resistant to it (i.e., Roundup Ready®). Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem.
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the amino acids which are used by the plant as building blocks in for growth and for defense against disease and insects. Plants that are genetically engineered to tolerate the glyphosate contain a gene that provides an alternative pathway for nutrients that is not blocked by the glyphosate herbicide. But this duplicate pathway requires energy from the plant that could be used for yield, thus many GMO crops experience Yield Drag – a reduction in yield.
Huber had several recommendations for growers, especially a much more judicious use of glyphosate, as small a dose as possible. He said farmers also need to provide supplementary nutrients to counteract its effects and thereby to restore plant resistance to toxins and diseases.
He mentioned that there are other herbicide products on the market, but they are more specific to particular weeds and degrade more swiftly, whereas glyphosate is broad spectrum and thus kills many types of weeds, and also endures for a longer span of time in the soil and plants.
“Slow down,” Huber said. “It takes time to restore soil biota if a field has been treated with glyphosate. We have 30 years of accumulated damage, so it may take some time to remediate all of this.”
“There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology,” he continued. “I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.”

Primary Realities

In his presentation at the Black Horse Inn Huber was convincing in his demeanor, encyclopedic in his knowledge, precise and eloquent in his delivery.  Late in the morning as he spoke of the fertility and yield issues, the complications for farmers, and the increased prevalence of disease, his eyes momentarily welled up with tears. Then as he concluded his talk he received a standing ovation from the assembly of about 80 Nebraska farmers and Extension staff.
Still, Huber’s personal integrity and his positive reception, at least at the Black Horse Inn, may be of small consequence in the face of a tsunami of criticism arising from the citadels of corporations and universities. None of that will be resolved until the data he and others have gathered passes peer review.
The primary realities in the GM and glyphosate debates are corporate avidity, scientific uncertainty, and overwhelming public disapproval. Many peer-reviewed articles suggest that biotech crops and foods are harmless; many suggest otherwise. The jury is still out. However, as Huber was arguing, the number of published articles showing that glyphosate and the biotech crops grown in its chemical soup cause harm to livestock is rising rapidly.
Studies showing the public has little taste for genetically engineered foods, and especially not for unlabeled  and thus unidentifiable genetically engineered foods,  remain convincing. According to reports from Food & Water Watch, 90% of Americans want GM foods labeled, and 91% say the FDA should not allow genetically modified pigs, chicken and cattle into the food supply. To date, the main parties keen about promoting unlabeled GM foods, and their herbicidal aides, are multinational corporations and their investors.
“Before we jump off the cliff,”  Huber said, “we need to have more research done. It takes a lot to reverse the problems.” Many observers would argue, convincingly, that we have already jumped off the cliff.
Huber sought just $25,000 to do sequencing to establish the phenotype of the newly identified pathogen, and then to name it. But no government, university, or corporation would provide that relatively paltry amount of money. Finally, a private individual came forward and made the money available. Then the lab that was originally keen to do the phenotyping backed out. The issue had become a hot potato and they did not want the controversy.  Still, Huber persevered, and he said they should have the phenotype established, and then be able to name the pathogen, in a matter of weeks.
“Let me emphasize that all of this is not a calamity,” Huber said, surprisingly, near the end of his talk. “Agriculture is the most critical infrastructure for any society. American agriculture has undergone a revolution and it will continue to progress.
“Still, I saw no reason to rush into the critical alfalfa decision and to thereby cause so many more acres to be treated with glyphosate,” he said. “Why take a chance until we get the answers? Research needs to be done…There is lots of new data that needs to be considered, lots of new studies that cannot be ignored.”

$88 million: Proposed cuts to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - $11 Billion impact and shutdown meat and poultry INSPECTION plants

No Matter What Happens on Friday, Government Likely to Shut Down Food & Water Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 5, 2011 10:45 AM

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch     Darcey Rakestraw, 202-683-2467;     drakestraw(at)fwwatch(dot)org

New Food & Water Watch Brief Analyzes Impact of Budget Cuts for Food & Water; 60-second Advocacy Ad Begins Airing Tomorrow

WASHINGTON - April 5 - Whether or not Congress shuts down this week lawmakers will likely cut food and water protections, which could increase foodborne illness, cut badly-needed federal money allocated to maintaining our aging water infrastructure, and hurt the economy, according to a national consumer organization.
Food & Water Watch used the original proposed budget in House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) as a benchmark in its analysis issued today, showing that these cuts would possibly shut down meat plants, result in less food inspections, and increase the number of water main breaks and sewage spills. The organization is also running an advocacy ad on cable in Washington, D.C. and John Boehner’s (R-OH) Congressional district on the issue starting tomorrow.
“These cuts are ideological in nature, and a close look shows that they are bad for not only our health, but also the economy,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “There will be more food in the system, but less people to inspect it. And many of our nation’s water systems that were built in the early 20th century are reaching the end of their lifespan, and fixing them means jobs. Cutting food and water protections is not worth the risk to our health or our economy.”
The $88 million in proposed cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would have an $11 billion economic impact due to the shutdown of meat and poultry plants, which would have ripple effects for local economies. And nearly $2 billion in cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for Clean Water and Drinking Water signify 54,000 jobs, approximately $6 billion lost from demand for products and services across the economy and $2.1 billion lost in household income.
The Food & Water Watch analysis of H.R. 1 also shows that:

• Of the $100 billion that the House plan would cut from the total budget, nearly $2 billion (or two percent) would come from the EPA’s State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for clean water and drinking water.
• Cuts to the SRFs signify nearly $2 billion removed from states and municipal budgets and will translate into lost jobs and lost worker income. The $2 billion in cuts would lead to losing out on 54,000 jobs, as well as approximately $6 billion in lost demand for products and services across the economy and $2.1 billion in lost household income.
• In 2009, 128 million gallons of bottled water was imported. However, the FDA’s oversight of imported bottled water is limited. On average, according to a Government Accountability Office review released in 2009, less than 1 percent of imported bottled spring or mineral water and less than 4 percent of all imported bottled water were examined between 2004 and 2008, and even less was sampled for water quality testing.
• The EPA estimates there are 40,000 sewage spills a year—the result of antiquated infrastructure that the SRFs help to maintain.

“Partisan bickering in Washington over the budget means tangible things to Americans’ health and wellbeing, and cuts to food and water programs demonstrate that,” said Hauter. “Government officials should do their jobs protecting the essential resources citizens need.”
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

###

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

EPA MAY RAISE "ACCEPTABLE" RADIATION IN WATER/FOOD 100, 1,000, 7MILLION times WHAT IS ALLOWED TODAY!

EPA Plan to Raise Radiation Exposure Limits Sparks Internal Debate

by Sue Sturgis        Published on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 by Facing South

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering dramatically increasing the allowable level of radioactive contamination in water, food and soil after radiological incidents such as spills or "dirty bomb" attacks.

The radioactive Iodine-131 detected in milk samples in California and Washington state were 5,000 times below levels of concern.  (AP) The move preceded the nuclear disaster now unfolding in Japan in the wake of last month's devastating earthquake and tsunami. Documents released today by the whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility show the plan has sparked concerns within EPA.
The agency's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) has prepared an update of the 1992 "Protective Action Guides" for radiation exposure. Other EPA divisions have raised concerns about how much the new guidelines would raise allowable exposures.
As Charles Openchowski of EPA's Office of General Counsel wrote in a January 2009 e-mail to ORIA:

"[T]his guidance would allow cleanup levels that exceed MCLs [Maximum Contamination Limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act] by a factor of 100, 1000, and in two instances 7 million and there is nothing to prevent those levels from being the final cleanup achieved (i.e., it's not confined to immediate response of emergency phase)."

Other EPA officials have raised concerns that drinking water containing radioactive contamination at the proposed limits would result in acute health effects such as vomiting and fever. PEER obtained the internal EPA e-mails after filing a lawsuit last fall under the Freedom of Information Act. It is still waiting for the agency to turn over thousands more communications.
"This critical debate is taking place entirely behind closed doors because this plan is 'guidance' and does not require public notice as a regulation would," said PEER Counsel Christine Erickson.
PEER sent EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a letter today calling for a more open and broader examination of the proposed radiation guidance.
A comprehensive 2005 report from the National Academy of Sciences found there is no safe dose of low-level radiation, with no threshold of exposure below which radiation can be shown to be harmless.
"The health risks -- particularly the development of solid cancers in organs -- rise proportionally with exposure," said epidemiologist Richard R. Monson, chair of the NAS committee that issued the report and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. "At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk."

© 2011 Facing South

WHAT FOODS DON'T NEED TO BE ORGANIC????

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

When it comes to the price of food, I think it's extremely important to remember that a food cannot be judged by its sticker price alone. Whether or not you're actually getting any nutrition from it is far more important. Believe me, a diet consisting of daily $1.99 hamburgers and other fast foods, while appearing to be frugal, is far from it when you consider what these foods are doing—or not doing—to your health.
This will be a progressively increasing concern as we are virtually assured in the United States and many other countries that there will be serious inflation coming as a result of the massive devaluation of the dollar.

Processed Foods are Massive Rip-Offs

While trying to list every single food that's a complete rip-off would result in a very thick book, I firmly believe it's safe to say that virtually all processed snacks and the majority of processed, pre-packaged meals are a massive waste of money. These types of foods consist mainly of fillers and additives, and very few actual nutrients. So while Funyuns made it onto Yahoo Health's list of rip-offs, I can't think of a single chip or puffed snack that doesn't belong on that list.
The same goes for virtually all breakfast cereals, whether they have cartoons on the box or not. Most cereals are frightfully high in sugar, and any nutrients they boast are in the form of suboptimal synthetic additives, or worse.
For example, iron fortified cereals can contain actual iron filings, which is a far cry from the bioavailable iron you get from iron-rich vegetables like spinach. If you haven't seen this eye-opening demonstration of what's really in that fortified breakfast cereal, take a look now—you'll probably never buy another box of cereal again, and rightfully so.

Organic Rip-Offs

I do agree with the contention that some organic foods are rip-offs, when their conventional counterparts are already grown using low amounts of pesticides and the food in question must be peeled anyway, such as bananas.
The Environmental Working Group is a reliable source when trying to decide on what to buy organic. According to their latest 2010 pesticide review, the following 12 foods rank as the most pesticide-free produce, even when conventionally-grown, so you can save a few bucks by opting for the conventionally-grown version of these:

Onions	Avocados	Watermelon
Pineapple	Mango	Frozen sweet peas
Asparagus	Kiwi	Cabbage
Eggplant	Cantaloupe

Frozen sweet corn was on the list above but I've removed it to avoid confusion. I do NOT recommend consuming non-organic corn and even organic corn should be consumed sparingly.

The foods you want to splurge on by buying organic are foods that have permeable or edible skins, and/or that are conventionally grown with higher amounts of pesticides. Based on the EWG's report, the top 12 foods to buy organic include:

Grapes	Potatoes	Kale / Collard greens
Cherries	Spinach	Sweet bell peppers
Nectarines	Blueberries	Apples
Strawberries	Peaches	Celery

For the whole list of produce, ranked from best to worst in terms of pesticide load, please see the EWG's listing.
Another major organic rip-off is organic milk. Because while organic milk must come from a cow that hasn't been fed artificial growth hormones or pesticide-laden feed, they're not necessarily pastured, or grass-fed cows. And worst of all organic milk (unless RAW) is still pasteurized, which destroys vital nutrients.
So, just because it's organic, doesn't mean it's worth a much higher price.

Rip-Offs in the Meat and Fish Aisles

When it comes to meats and fish, a lot of what you find in your local grocery store is not worth their price when you consider their nutrient to contamination ratio.
Yahoo Health' rip-off list includes swordfish, which is still considered a luxury by many. But when you factor in the high amounts of mercury you get from that swordfish, it just doesn't rank so high on the wish list anymore. Why would you want to pay $20 a pound or more knowing it's so contaminated that children and pregnant women shouldn't have a single serving of it?
I would also add any and all farmed fish to the list of rip-offs.
Nature didn't intend for fish to be crammed into pens and fed soy, GM corn, antibiotics, poultry litter and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result of this practice, farmed salmon, for example, is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.
As for meat, I advise everyone to avoid conventionally-raised beef.
Why?
Because cattle were designed  to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. Compared with corn-fed beef, organically-raised grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.
Conventionally-raised beef is also very high in pesticides (due to eating conventionally grown grains, and perhaps even genetically modified grains). In fact, non-organic meats can have up to five times more pesticides than non-organic vegetables!
This is why I recommend always buying organic, grass-fed beef. If you have to choose between buying organic beef or organic produce—get the organic beef. It'll give you the greatest bang for your buck in terms of health benefits.

Diet as "Health Insurance"

You can't tune into the news today without hearing about rising food prices. But rest assured, by knowing what foods to spend your money on, you can still protect and optimize your health without going bankrupt in the process.
Men's Health offers a list of 40 nutrient-dense food items—and that's really the key here. By opting for foods that are rich in vital nutrients, your body can thrive. This will automatically cut down on the inevitable health care costs you'd incur by making foolish dietary choices.
Below is a list of foods rich in nutrients that can help stave off a majority of health problems—foods that really give you lots of value.
As I've discussed on numerous occasions, one of the primary risk factors of diseases of all kinds is chronic inflammation in your body. Low inflammation levels and a strong immune system typically go hand in hand, and together these two factors lay the groundwork for robust health.
Some of the foods below are both inexpensive and highly nutritious, while others do cost a bit more but can go a long way toward healing your body of chronic inflammation and boosting your immune system naturally, without resorting to either supplements or drugs.

High-Value Foods

Unpasteurized (raw) grass-fed milk -- Raw organic milk from grass-fed cows contains both beneficial fats, bacteria that boost your immune system, and a number of vitamins, minerals and enzymes. Although raw milk availability is limited in the US, depending on where you live, you can locate the source closest to you at RealMilk.com.
Whey protein -- Even if you don't have access to raw milk, you can use a high-quality whey protein derived from the milk of grass-fed cows to receive much of the same health benefits. Whey protein contains beta-glucans and immunoglobulins, which protect your immune system and support your body's natural detoxification processes.
Fermented foods -- One of the most healthful fermented foods is kefir -- an ancient cultured, enzyme-rich food full of friendly microorganisms that balance your "inner ecosystem" and strengthen immunity. Besides kefir, other good fermented foods include natto, kimchee, miso, tempeh, pickles, sauerkraut, and olives.
Raw organic eggs from pastured chickens – Raw, free-range eggs are an inexpensive and amazing source of high-quality nutrients that many people are deficient in, especially high-quality protein and fat. To find free-range pasture farms, try your local health food store, or go to http://www.eatwild.com or http://www.localharvest.org.
Grass-fed beef or organ meats -- Grass-fed beef is very high in vitamins A, B12 and E, omega-3 fats, beta carotene, zinc and the potent immune system enhancer CLA (conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid). But don't confuse "organic" with grass-fed, since many organically raised cows are still fed organic corn, which you don't want. However, most grass-fed cows are raised organically.
Coconut oil -- Besides being excellent for your thyroid and your metabolism, coconut oil is rich in lauric acid, which converts in your body to monolaurin – a compound also found in breast milk that strengthens a baby's immunity.
Its medium chain fatty acids, or triglycerides (MCT's) also impart a number of health benefits, including raising your body's metabolism and fighting off pathogens such as viruses, bacteria and fungi. Make sure you choose an organic coconut oil that is unrefined, unbleached, made without heat processing or chemicals, and does not contain GM ingredients.
Berries -- Blueberries and raspberries rate very high in antioxidant capacity compared to other fruits and vegetables. They are also lower in fructose than many other fruits.
Broccoli – Broccoli contains the highest amount of isothiocyanates, a cancer-fighting compound, of all the crunchy vegetables. Studies have shown that just 10 spears a week (5 servings) can make a difference in your health.
Chlorella –This single-cell freshwater algae acts as an efficient detoxification agent by binding to toxins (most of which promote chronic inflammation), such as mercury, and carrying them out of your system. The chlorophyll in the chlorella helps you process more oxygen, cleanses your blood and promotes the growth and repair of your tissues. (For more information, please see my interview with expert, Ginny Banks.)
Tea – As for beverages, clean pure water is a must for optimal health, but if you want another beverage, a good choice with added health benefits is high quality herbal teas.
Matcha tea is the most nutrient-rich green tea and comes in the form of a stone-ground powder, completely unfermented. The best Matcha comes from Japan and has up to 17 times the antioxidants of wild blueberries, and seven times more than dark chocolate. Tulsi is another tea loaded with antioxidants and other micronutrients that support immune function and heart health.
Krill Oil—Krill oil is the only dietary supplement that makes it to this list, and that's only because the ideal food source for these essential omega-3 fats has been destroyed by widespread pollution. The dangers of eating fish simply outweigh the benefits due to the toxic mercury levels they now contain, with very few exceptions.
Antarctic krill oil is a pure marine oil loaded with powerful antioxidants and omega-3 oils, with NO heavy metal contamination.

I hope you'll find these suggestions helpful in making the most of your food budget in these economically challenging times.

Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/29/what-are-the-7-worst-supermarket-ripoffs.aspx

Scientists Vigorously Objected to This Food - Are You Eating It?

Dr. Philip Bereano is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and an actively engaged activist against genetically modified (GM) foods. His academic work is within Technology and Public Policy, and over the past 30 years,
Dr. Bereano's work has focused on genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) in foods, crops and animals, as well as human genetic engineering issues.

Sources:

  Video Transcript

 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Dr. Philip Bereano has spent the last three decades looking into genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) in foods, crops, animals, and humans—both nationally, here in the United States, and internationally. His work led him to participate in the negotiation of two international treaties under the United Nations that dealt with issues relating to GMOs. He's also participated in the U.N. agency relating to foods, and the Codex Alimentarius Committee's taskforce on genetically engineered foods.

GMOs Have Never Been Proven Safe, Nor Beneficial…

In this interview, he shares his perspective on the safety of GM foods, or rather the lack thereof.

"First of all, we need to understand what we mean by the word safe," he says. "Actually, in terms of the academic literature, "safe" refers to "an acceptable level of risk." It doesn't refer to situations where there is no risk. Most of us drive in cars all the time and consider it to be safe even though we know that people are killed and injured in automobiles frequently. We have to understand that safe equals acceptable risk.
The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is that there are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is no research, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of a genetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in the peer-reviewed literature that isn't proprietary. Corporations promoting these things claim that they have done research, but you can't get any information on it because it's all claimed to be proprietary.
Under what is known now as the precautionary principle—which is what your grandparents used to teach you about looking before you leap—the only prudent course of action is to NOT proceed with something which has potential risks and only potential benefits until you know a little bit more about it."

I couldn't agree more.

Safety Principles are Being Ignored in a Number of Ways

There are in fact international treaties—most notably the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, which about 175 countries have signed—that enshrine the precautionary principle.

"It says very clearly that countries may use the precautionary approach before allowing the import of any genetically engineered organisms into their territories," Dr. Bereano explains.

The US is one country, however, that has fully embraced GM foods, on a government level, and does not appear to have any intentions of following the precautionary principle. The primary reason for this is because Monsanto, the clear leader in the biotech industry, has managed to infiltrate virtually every government office that has a hand in regulating their industry.
Another way to ensure safety (or acceptable level of risk), is to conduct the necessary research to evaluate the potential environmental- and human health risks involved prior to condoning the use of GMOs. However, that's NOT being done either. In fact, there are very few peer-reviewed studies available on the effects of GMOs.

"There is quite a bit of research that has indicated that there may be health risks," Dr. Bereano says, "but this research has not been funded for replication, for extension, for further studies, and so forth. And very often the scientists who have performed that [independent] research… have become ostracized instead of recognized for maybe opening up an important area of inquiry."

Dr. Bereano also brings up another important point, which is that for all the benefits touted, they're primarily potential benefits, because just like there's a lack of proof of safety, there's a glaring lack of proof of actual benefit.
Who actually benefits from GMO's, and who or what might be harmed by it?

"It's not just a question of what the total risks or benefits might be, but who do they accrue to? That makes it also a more political or social set of issues," he says.

Then of course there are the conflicts of interest, which can be found at virtually every level, from the research labs to the regulatory agencies. But there's also the issue of group-think, which is typically more insidious and harder to root out because it's a social mechanism, and few people are immune to its power.

"Conflicts of interest operates very institutionally too, because a lot of scientists are in departments that get funding from the biotech industry. What it evolves into is a set of world views.
If you are immersed in a profession and a culture and all of your colleagues think certain ways about certain things, then you're not very likely to challenge that… The exact same phenomenon happens with geneticists and people who do biotech science. They read the same journals. They get reviewed for promotion…  You have to parrot the same views that your older superiors believe or otherwise they're going to think you're crazy and not doing good work and won't promote you.
There are social mechanisms which reinforce this that go well beyond "conflict of interest" in a very simplified sense."

The "Legal Fiction" of GMO Regulation

Dr. Bereano points out that the decision to regulate GMOs based on earlier regulatory statutes is "a kind of legal fiction," because those earlier statutes were created well before the technology of genetic engineering was even developed.

"There was a public policy decision made not to go for special regulation, which would have of course resulted in lots of news articles, congressional hearings and all the rest of it, which would have alerted the public in this country to the existence of this new technology which huge numbers of Americans have no idea exists their food supply, unlike countries where these have all been matters of public debate.
It was a very shrewd decision by the government and by the industry to claim, first in 1986 that this coordinated Federal framework of existing regulatory bodies could handle it, and then in 1992, officially claiming that genetically engineered foods were "substantially equivalent" to their non-engineered counterparts."

This policy was created and announced not by the FDA itself, but rather by the President's Council on Competitiveness—a council composed of, you guessed it: corporate executives.
Interestingly, most FDA scientists actually vigorously objected to this policy! This was only made public, however, after a lawsuit granted access to FDA documents in which FDA scientists expressed concerns that there was, naturally, major differences between genetically engineered and conventional foods.
Perhaps the most ironic part of this whole charade is the fact that ever since then, Monsanto and other biotech companies have filed patents arguing that their GM products are completely unique and different from their conventional counterparts, and therefore must receive patent protection and monopoly!

Are GM Crops the Answer to World Hunger as Claimed?

One of the justifications for the use of genetically engineered crops is that it can eradicate world hunger. Clearly, the production of adequate food supply is a noble goal, but the supposition that we can achieve this goal through the use of GM crops is seriously flawed.

"The largest study in the world that dealt with this, which included about 400 scientists, was assembled by the United Nations and the World Bank into something called the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). After a long set of studies that were peer-reviewed, portions were sent around and I received elements of the final report," Dr. Bereano says.
"The IAASTD found little evidence to support a conclusion that genetic engineering or modern biotech are well suited to meet the needs of small scale and subsistence farmers who were of course feeding huge numbers of people, especially in the Third World where hunger is so evident."

He also accurately points out that we have hunger right here in the US, despite our grain surpluses and despite the fact that we use genetic engineering more than any other country. Food production and hunger is not necessarily a simple one-to-one equation. There's also the issue of not having enough money to buy the food that is readily available!
Additionally, GM crops sure aren't less expensive than conventional!
On the contrary, GM seeds are getting increasingly expensive, as are the prerequisite pesticides—not to mention the fact that farmers are forced to buy new GM seeds every year, opposed to saving the best seeds for the next planting, which has been done since the beginning of agriculture. The increased expense of farming with GM seeds has likely already caused more than 180,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide when faced with insurmountable debt, failed crops, and no money to buy new seed.
Not surprisingly, Monsanto and the United States, along with a couple of other countries refused to sign off on the final report that was ultimately issued by the UN…
On the other hand, studies have repeatedly confirmed that farming methods that promote healthy soils and biodiversity can dramatically increase production and yield. For example, as recently as March 8, the United Nations issued a press release with the headline: Eco-Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years.

It states:
"Small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods, a new UN report shows. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest.
"To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available," says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report. "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live -- especially in unfavorable environments."
Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.
"To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects," De Schutter says…
"We won't solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers' knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development."

Best of all, these agro-ecological approaches do not pose any danger to the environment or to human health whatsoever—quite the contrary!
So, wouldn't it make sense to focus on the safest, most beneficial, and most effective methods of food production instead of dabbling around with unproven high-risk technology that may or may not provide any benefit whatsoever to anyone besides the patent holders?
Unfortunately, the fact this isn't happening is a testament to the immense power of the biotech industry, led by Monsanto, whose corporate officials rotate in and out of the White House administration, the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

What Do We Know About the Health Effects of GMOs?

As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.
However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.

"First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions within the genes of the genome that we don't really understand it well," Dr. Bereano says. "Let me give a simple example.
The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cell in your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituents of what's in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell is going to produce and do.
There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millions of proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and different interactions among the genes in different locations in the body. There are proteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreas and don't turn it on in your eyeball
… It's important to understand that the structure of the genome is not determinative of what that cell does.
Yet, the kind of mental model that's being used in all of these discussions is what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let's take out a yellow piece or let's put in a green piece… but it's not an issue just of structure—it's of interaction.
These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after it is altered? In many instances we don't know. It might change spontaneously. There are lots of questions there.
They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these results are going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that."

GM Contamination—An Intentional Strategy to Destroy Organic

If you've followed the debate about genetically engineered crops for some time, you may remember that the USDA initially proposed that the organic rules should allow GM foods to be labeled organic. Fortunately, the public outcry squashed this atrocious proposal. In fact, it was the second largest citizen response up until that time for any proposed regulation. After several hearings around the US, the final organic rule did not allow for GM ingredients.
However, we now face another problem, namely contamination—both in the fields and during processing.
It's becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee a food will not contain any kind of GM substance. This is an industry fact that holds true for all organic retailers. Even the Non-GMO project has admitted this. The recent approval of GM alfalfa will only make matters worse, as alfalfa is a powerful pollinator.

"Contamination is an intentional strategy," Dr. Bereano says. "It's an intentional strategy by both the government and the industry. We have statements to that effect… Contamination in the field by pollen flow; contamination in the processing. They use the same railcars for engineered and non-engineered crops and things like that."

Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association also discussed this in a recent interview, warning that any alfalfa growing within a five mile radius of GM alfalfa will immediately become contaminated. The ramifications of this contamination are actually far worse than you might think, because alfalfa is a major food source for organic dairy cows. So once organic alfalfa becomes contaminated, organic milk and beef goes out the window too.
Echoing Dr. Bereano's beliefs exactly, Cummins also said:

"I believe that this is an act of premeditated genetic pollution of the gene pool of alfalfa and related plants by Monsanto. They know exactly what they're doing.
They understand is that if you pollute enough alfalfa across the country to where it becomes impossible to grow organic alfalfa that isn't contaminated, perhaps then the organic community will weaken and allow genetically engineered animal feed under the rules of organic production."

Final Thoughts

In closing, I want to remind you that you and I do have the power to turn this around, but it will require steadfast avoidance of all genetically modified foods, which by and large means avoiding processed foods that contain corn, soy and canola—unless it's USDA Certified 100% Organic. Soon this list will also include non-organic sugar beets, as GM sugar beets have also recently been approved.
It will also require steadfast sharing of information to educate those around you about the problems with GM foods and why it's so essential to vote them off the market with your pocket book. It's quite clear that we cannot win this fight through regulatory action, but we can still force it off our shelves and out of our fields if sufficient amounts of people simply refuse to buy these products.

What You Can Do to Help Bring About the Tipping Point

To help you do this, the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has created a variety of tools that makes it easier for you to choose non-GM foods and help educate others to do the same:

1. Distribute widely the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
2. Download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
3. You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Guide in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
4. Join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network, where you can connect with Local and National Non-GMO Action Groups to learn more and help get the word out about GMOs to others.
5. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child's school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators.
6. Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey's lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
7. Join the Institute for Responsible Technologies Facebook page, or follow them on Twitter.

Also support the Non-GMO Project by urging your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project's Supporting Retailer Program, and food manufacturers to join and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the best way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there's no GM-labeling system.