The World Food Prize - no, this is an actual prize given to people

The World Food Prize this year has been awarded to three individuals, Dr. Marc Van Montagu, Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton and Dr. Robert T. Fraley.  The website for the World Food Prize tells us that the prize is awarded to those that have made great contributions to the world for "... individual breakthrough achievements in founding, developing, and applying modern agricultural biotechnology. Their research is making it possible for farmers to grow crops with: improved yields; resistance to insects and disease; and the ability to tolerate extreme variations in climate."  

HUH?

I don't understand, the USDA website actually shows declining yields from GM crops in the US.  Research has shown that GM crops lack the proverbial "Substantial Equivalence" with regards to nutritional composition as promised to us.  And the resistance to insects, weeds killers and diseases have backfired, and the growth of insect and weed resistant species as well as new diseases have destroyed any hopes that GM crops are the miracles promised by Monsanto. 

Oh crap, wait a minute, doesn't Monsanto fund the World Food Prize?

Yeah, they do.  With a laudable concept, the World Food Prize honors a great plant biologist and Nobel Laureate, Dr. Norman Borlaug.  A nice honor.  A pretty cool tribute to a great man.  Except that Monsanto pretty much funds the whole thing so that the honors to scientists each year now go to those doing research on Genetically Modified Organisms.  That would be kind of like my ex-wife starting a foundation and giving herself an award for her humanitarian efforts to destroy my life, my business and my relationships with other women that are younger, thinner and nicer than her.  She excels in those areas, but fails as a human being.  Sigh, I just can't help but remember all those visits from state and county health inspectors responding to complaints from her.  Oh well, I can take a joke.  I never scored less than 98 on all those inspections.  Anyway, those that pay for the honors seem to get to choose who they honor.  That's why the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences isn't backed by MGM, if they were, only MGM movies would win Oscars.  I may be old fashioned, but some stuff kind of makes sense.  I guess that the real world and real world opinions are just too much for some business leaders.

Here is a copy of an ad in a newspaper in Europe from 1998.  The European countries were requiring the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms that are used in any ingredients of any foods for human consumption and for animals that are consumed or produce products for human consumption.

Monsanto actually stated that they were certain beyond all expectations, GM crops were better and that labeling would not in any way harm their sales of GM foods.  They were wrong, GM crops don't sell in Europe, those people do not want them.  That's why Monsanto is so adamant about not having any laws in the US that require labeling of any GM food products.  Because they know that a moderate percentage of American consumers would not buy the crap if it said on the label that it was GM.

Monsanto has shown some success in pulling the wool over the eyes of Americans, with over 46 million dollars spent to defeat the GM labeling law in California last November, all of the heads of Monsanto have seen that in fact Americans are susceptible to advertising.  California airwaves were flooded with commercials telling residents that if passed, the law would drive up food costs by four to six hundred dollars per person, that GM crops were safe, and that organic food was no better than GM foods.  I don't think that I need to take the time to explain how all that is crap, but at this time is just seems that Monsanto is preparing for what they must beleive to be the appocolypse.  States passing laws to label GM foods.  That will be a major problem for Monsanto, when people see what they are eating, a good 30 to 35 per cent might make a choice to choose not to buy GM foods.

Really?

Yeah, most people don't care.  Some might, but the thought processes from the majority of people is that, so what, attitude.  They drink soda, eat white bread, buy packaged processed foods, (or what manufacturers call food) and are fine with it.  They eat at the golden arches and the burger king and at the Jack everyday and feel fine.  That's why those places exist, addictive foods, huge profits paying for blanket advertising, and additives additives additives.  People feel good after eating crap, and yet, no one can tell them that they are destined to die prematurely and in a horrific painful way.  They don't care.  They just had a burger, fries and coke, or a pizza, or whatever, and they feel good.   When the boob tube shows them commercials that show these wonderful recipients of the World Food Prize received that incredible recognition, then when it comes time to go vote, GM all the way.  They feel good for crying out loud. 

No one can make you, or any other person, eat a wholesome diet, exercise, or live a life of goodness and purity.  Sounds kind of gay huh?  But it's true, what you do is up to you, and you alone.  If you are happy with your life, with your health, your children's and their children's health, then those decisions to live your lifestyle and teach that to your progeny, is in fact yours.  Don't whine about cancer, degenerative disorders, autism, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, sterility, ALS like symptoms or anything else.

I try like hell to warn you what will happen if you choose wrong.

Saturated fat. They don't really lie to us, they just don't understand their own research.

For quite some time now the medical conspiracy association has been telling the world that saturated fats are bad for humans, and should be avoided.  Of course back when they first began disseminating this information the standard belief was that margarine, packed with trans fats, was a healthier alternative.  Hmmm, now that I think about it, I wonder how much the margarine manufacturers contributed to the medical conspiracy to have them back their poison. Probably a lot, I mean even the nasty tasting I Can't Believe It's Not Butter would not sell if people didn't feel that it was better for them than natural alternatives. Like butter.  Chock full of saturated fat.

But, new research, and actually just reviewing the original research that was interpreted in a way that made it appear that saturated fats caused heart disease; has shown just how wrong those conclusions have been. It all started in 1953 when this guy, Ancel Keys, published a paper showing the incidence of heart disease when compared to saturated fat intake in 7 different countries.  It was a landmark study, and formed the basis of the recommendations that Americans eat a low fat diet.  However, the good Dr. Keys ignored data from 15 other countries where just the opposite was true.  In fact, the good doc had data available from 22 different countries and given THAT data, the overwhelming conclusions show that populations that consume a higher percentage of calories from fat, specifically saturated fat, have lower incidences of heart disease. 

How does that work?  How does a researcher ignore data that would dispute the conclusions he publishes?

Money.

Sounds familiar now doesn't it?  Monsanto does it all the time.  Ignore the research from prominent  scientists showing how harmful their products are.  GM crops, Aspartame, rBGH,  glyphosate, Agent Orange, dioxin and PCB's. Hmmmmm, isn't there research showing all of those things to be toxic, cumulative, and big money makers for Monsanto.  Aren't there 32 SUPER sites of toxic pollution that the feds deemed so toxic that they have stripped all of the people, plant and animal life from them while they attempt to clean them up, and all are attributed to Monsanto production methods of dumping instead of destroying wastes.  And for the most part, Monsanto has only had to pay less than a billion of the estimated trillion dollars needed to clean up those sites.

Yeah.

It isn't new to try to mislead the people with partial or misleading research.  It happens all the time.  And in reality, ol' doc Keys wasn't a bad guy.  He invented "K-Rations" in World War II".  And studied fish.  A lot.  And did this weird study on saturated fats and heart disease.  Who knows.  I can't find that he went to work for any big business after the study.  Not like so many scientists at the FDA and USDA who go work for Monsanto after approving certain products that are known to be toxic.  Not like that.  But there must be some connection some where.  Maybe not, but it does seem to defy belief that someone would publish such a flawed study that affects so many millions and millions of people and billions and billions of dollars.

Anyway, the true facts are coming to light lately in a number of published studies showing the flawed conclusions.  It seems that, all things considered equal (meaning an overall healthy diet) that people consuming high amounts of natural foods containing high amounts of saturated fats have generally lower cholesterol and lower risk of heart disease.  Just the opposite of what Keys published.  And what to this day the AMA says is the preferred diet, low fat, avoidance of saturated fats completely.

There in lies the rub, it seems that saturated fats are not bad only if certain conditions of diet are met.  Mainly being that you eat a diet that contains no trans-fats, few refined carbohydrates like white flour, sugar, white rice or processed most anything, and has a generally equal ratio of saturated to polyunsaturated fat.  Yicks, that pretty much means that anyone living on the SAD (Standard American Diet) if losing the battle right off the bat.  But people that have any actual concern at all about their health and eat unprocessed foods, lots of vegetables and some fruit, nothing white, and nothing FAST; can pretty much not worry about having bacon, avocados and organic meats.  The fact is that Modern Meat is still bad for you for other reasons, but that good wholesome meats are no longer something to avoid because of what once was considered the GOSPEL of modern medicine, a low fat diet. The wonderful AMA has been attempting to pass this concept off to the public for almost sixty years now.  I looked at the AMA annual report, and it seems that a third of their operating expenses come from, "contributions".  With no specific actual sources listed, just a heading and total.  Makes me wonder if a good sized portion of the money comes from the makers of margarine.

Tuna Pie, not what some guys thinkin' - Prickly Pear Pie

Yes, prickly pear fruits are called Tuna.  Don't ask me why, I have no idea.  And in the scheme of life, it makes no difference, call them Tuna, or Beads of Heaven, or Nodules of Needles, Deathtraps of Delight.  Whatever.  I talked about enjoying some of the true native foods of the Southwest in previous posts, today I'm going to talk about making native dessert, Tuna Pie.

To make the pie, you need to get out and forage for some mesquite pods, and some tuna.  You need about 20 to 25 good size fully ripe prickly pear fruit.  Good and dark red at the tops, carefully pick them with tongs and bag them up and take them home.  Also you will need some more mesquite pods for the pie crust.  Grind the pods in the blender and sift out the big pieces.  Don't use the commercial mesquite flour for this, it is just too fine and won't give the same results as grinding in the blender.  We are looking for coarse mesquite, sort of like graham cracker texture.  Take a cup and a half of mesquite meal and toss with a half teaspoon of cinnamon.  That's optional, I like it though, you might try it and see, I think the cinnamon works well with the sweetness of the mesquite and tuna both.  Melt a stick of butter with a quarter cup of desert wildflower honey and stir it into the meal well and then press the mixture into a ten inch pie plate.  Bake in a 350 oven until well browned.  Remove and cool.  Now if you have a juicer, this gets easier, juice the tuna along with two apples.  If you don't have a juicer, grind them up in a blender and strain in a medium strainer, scraping the strainer often and pressing the juice through.  You should have at least two and a half to three cups of the juice.  Don't be tempted to buy a bottle of prickly pear juice and use it, most all brands sweeten the juice with corn syrup.  Not a good thing, see other articles on my blog about corn syrup poison.  So, now, taste the juice, if sweet enough, use it.  If not, add a bit of honey.  This is optional, but it does add complexity to the flavor, add the juice of a lime.  Now, take three egg yolks and beat well in a saucepan with a tablespoon of tapioca root.  Add half the juice, stir well and place over medium heat and while stirring bring to a boil, when it thickens, add the other half of the juice.  Remove from heat, cool to the touch and pour all but two tablespoons into the baked crust.  Chill in the fridge for a couple hours.  Take three quarters cup of heavy cream and add the reserved juice with another tablespoon honey and beat until stiff peaks form.  Spread or pipe onto the top of the pie and serve.  

An alternative way to make the pie is after you cook the juice mixture, cool in the fridge until well chilled and thick.  Then beat a cup and a half of heavy cream with the reserved juice and honey.  Remove about a third or so, and fold in the chilled juice until well blended.  It should be dark pink and light in texture.  Put into the pie shell and pipe on or spread the reserved whipped cream.  This one is very nice as well. 

Some cool stuff can be done with native foods, and the late desert is the best time to start a foraging trip out to get the stuff to experiment.  If you are lucky enough to live in an area where they raise goats, then try this out.  It sounds weird, but it is incredibly tasty.  I once had a goat wander into my yard one day.  I have no idea how it got there, but it was full of milk and bleating like crazy.  So I got about a quart of fresh milk out of her before she ran off.  Anyway, take the milk and heat on the stove in a pan with a cup of wildflower honey.  Stirring very frequently, cook until the milk turns light brown and gets thick.  Takes about an hour or so.  Add a couple of canned chipotle chilies that you minced along with a tablespoon sea salt.  Stir in well and serve that warm over the pie instead of the whipped cream.  YUMMY, sweet, caramelly, spicy and a bit salty, wow, this is the BOMB. 

From time to time I am going to go back through my old computer and get some of my recipes I used to make using southwestern native foods.  And print them up here.  I used to do a lot of fun stuff for my son and the neighbors, it was all in fun and we had a great time doing it.  My kid loved the stuffed rattlesnake.  Maybe next week. 

Nobody Wants Cancer in our society, wellllllll, maybe, some do.

The American Cancer Society has a nice website, and their expressed goals are laudable, they do in fact give their readers the idea that they are there to fight cancer.

Here is what the ACS website says about rBGH in milk, "The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH. Together with its advocacy affiliate, the ACS Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the Society supports open, fair and transparent regulatory oversight of products containing rBGH. The ACS also encourages continued and expanded scientific research and independent, credible assessment of potential relationships between the use of this substance in cows and human cancer risk. We support regulatory standards based on rigorous scientific evidence to minimize exposure to carcinogens, and we encourage the FDA to give the public information regarding known and suspected causes of cancer in the food system. The need for an effective FDA in ensuring the safety of our food supply, medicines, and consumer products has never been greater."   (ACS rBGH)
Yeah, okay.  An effective FDA.  Ensuring the safety of our food supply.  This is what one former head of the organization tells us.  "People think the FDA is protecting them - it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what people think it's doing are as different as night and day." - Herbert L. Ley, Jr., M. D., former Commissioner of the FDA.

Man, the cancer people are living in a dream world.  And in fact they are, cancer research is pretty much a monopoly held by the American Cancer Society.  Work is being done by individuals, and research that has made HUGE strides in curing a large number of cancers.

The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment by Ralph W. Moss - An ex-cancer insider at the Sloan Kettering institute details all of the alternative therapies which have been railroaded by the cancer establishment. An interesting read for anyone who has the nagging feeling that the cancer war is being lost because pharmaceutical companies are avoiding possible natural, non patentable cures.  And the FDA is in cahoots and protects the monopoly that big Pharma companies have over research by persecuting any individual doing research on his own in his own private facilities.  Even when he shows HUGE results.  The man in question is Dr. Burzinski.  A guy that has taken on the government, and won.  Sort of, he didn't go to jail.  But his progressive and successful research is still unavailable to the world because of the FDA persecution of him.  Here is what he has to deal with, “I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.” - Dr. Richard J. Crout, former Director of the FDA.   

Wow, seems against the stated objective of the FDA to protect AmeriKans.  I wish it was the only thing they do contrary to their objective of protecting you and me.  But it isn't.  The Cancer Prevention Coalition has been petitioning the FDA to ban the use of rBGH in AmeriKa for several years  Pretty much the rest of the world has banned the stuff, but it increases profits exponentially with use.  Profits versus health of the consumers, not much of a choice in profit driven AmeriKa. 

In 1997, two Fox-affiliate reporters attempted to air a program exposing the truth about the dangers of rBGH. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the Florida network, sent letters promising "dire consequences" if the story aired.  After attempts by Fox to pay off the reporters to keep quiet failed, the station agreed to air a revised version of the report. An unheard of 83 edits later, the report was shelved and the courts took over. Although a lower court ruled in favor of the reporters for some $425,000, a Florida appeals court denied them whistleblower protection, claiming Fox (and the media in general) have no obligation to tell the truth and have the freedom to report, essentially, fact OR fiction as real news.  Makes sense to me.  Not only do the media do what big businesses want, so do the courts. 

Budget for the National Cancer Society is 5.4 Billion Dollars annually.
Big Pharma companies in the Fortune 500, have profit percentages that are TRIPLE that of ANY other Fortune 500 company.  The top ten drug companies make MORE in PROFIT than the entire rest of the Fortune 500 companies COMBINED.  A large part of that profit is cancer treatments.  For the most part, curing cancer with modern medical treatments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is a dream.  Successful treatment of most cancers is still less than 20%.  Prostate, breast and skin cancer have higher rates of success.  Every other kind, zip. 

There is no monetary incentive to find an effective cure for cancer. 

No, I don't mean to attempt to get you to think that all breast cancers are caused by rBGH in milk.  They aren't.  The stuff was only approved in 1992, it can't be the cause of them all.  But then why has the incidence of breast, and well, all cancers; been increasing since the early 70's?

Diet?

Hey, sounds like the missing link to me.  The fact is that AmeriKa has approved more toxic additives to its food supply than any other nation on earth, AmeriKa allows higher levels of toxic residues of KNOWN carcinogenic pesticide and herbicides on its crops than any other nation on earth, and AmeriKa has some of the most polluted water supplies of any country on earth; and AmeriKa has the highest rates of all cancers of any country on earth.  The FDA doesn't want anyone to make that connection.  According to them, life here in Monsanto controlled AmeriKa,  is perfect.  Thank you Napoleon and Squeeler, life here on Animal Farm is perfect indeed!

The Whole Enchilada. GM, Mark of Excellence!

I used to watch a lot of TV in my youth, not so much anymore, a couple of shows I find to be incredibly well written, and don't miss them.  The Newsroom on HBO for one.  Longmire on A&E, for character development, and Big Bang Theory, cuz they remind me of me.  And other than repeats of Stargate, that's about it.  For the most part, TV grosses me out today.  But anyway, a long time ago, there was a series of commercials on the black and white box, and after showing the latest model, there would appear the big letters and the chorus of mostly male baritones would sing, " GM, Mark of Excellence"  I remember those commercials, and can't help but think that now the heads of General Motors might be having their brand confused with what is happening with our food supply today.  GM.

(The Whole Enchilada)
If you check out the whole enchilada it is a paper written by a researcher named  Dr. Judy Carman and a couple of others.  It is a pretty interesting report, and is very unique in that it does what no one else has ever done and looked at feeding Genetically Modified corn and soy to pigs.  Then looking at the pigs to see what damage was done.  Pigs, not the kind you find feeding at the troughs at the local Chinese Buffet, but real pigs, oinkers.  The little guys used to make bacon.  It is worth noting of course that this feeding study was done for less than 28 weeks.  It is in no way as comprehensive or long term as the Seralini report, but it does offer some new insights that were never expressed in that, or any other reported feeding study.  Here is why the researchers chose pigs to work with.  "Even though pigs are physiologically similar to humans, particularly for gastrointestinal observations, very few toxicology studies have been conducted on them for GM crops."  A pretty good reason to start a study, at least I think so anyway.

Then, when deciding to do this study, Dr. Carman looked at other studies and found, "...in 90 day feeding studies.  They found some evidence for adverse liver and kidney effects from eating some GM crops" And also they found in the Seralini study, "..higher death rates, more tumours and liver and kidney pathologies in GM-fed rats."  At the end of the paper are these conclusions written by Dr. Carman,
"Conclusion - Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet.  Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans, this is a cause for concern..... the results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.  Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans."

Wow!

It is extremely important to note that this was a less than 28 week study.  Pigs were fed GM crops for a very short term.  Only long enough to get them to market weight for slaughter.  Just slightly over twice as long as the longest feeding study done by Monsanto or any other Gene Tech company before sending off the GM plants to begin commercial planting.  A hundred and ninety days.  And the result is a statistically significant increase in gastrointestinal problems along with hugely distorted growth of the uteri in the female pigs.

How long have you been eating a GMO diet?

How would you even know for certain, your food in AmeriKa does not have to have on the label that it is Genetically Modified.  

1. Dr. Carman research - pigs fed GM crops have high rates of inflammation and damage to their gastrointestinal tracts along with enlarged uteri in all the females
2. Scientists from the Russian National Association for Gene Security - Hamsters, mice and rats fed GM soy along with control groups fed no soy, non-GM soy, 10% GM-soy and 20% GM-soy found that the GM soy groups had as high as 25% infant mortality on the second generation with almost 40% fewer births and the third generation of GM soy fed all were sterile.
3. Seralini report - rats fed GM soy and corn for two years had higher than normal premature death rates and virtually all of the rats had tumors
4. Princeton University - reports Horizontal Gene Transfer takes place in the guts of human, (well students) volunteers.  Humans fed GM soy for several weeks then had their intestinal bacteria tested and the bacteria not only had the genes present that were inserted into the GM soy, they also had the genes present that were inserted into GM corn that the volunteers had been eating outside the study.
5. NCBI study on Glyphosate toxicity - Long term exposure to glyphosate residues on crops sprayed with Roundup lead to accumulation of the main constituent, glyphosate in the brain, kidneys, liver and reproductive organs in mammals. 
6. Archives of Toxicology Journal report - Glyphosate at concentrations of .02% of standard recommended usage leads to destruction of human DNA when residues on plants are consummed.
7. Dr. Mezzomo of the Department of Genetics and Morphology at the Institute of Biological Sciences at University of Brasilia report - Bacillus thuringensis toxins, previously thought to be of no significance to mammalian physiology have now been shown to be hemotoxic, killing red blood cells, cytotoxic to bone marrow, and there is a measurable negative effect as time goes on with respect to these toxins.  It was also noted that Bt toxin has been found in significant amounts in pregnant women and in fetal blood of unborn infants.  

Pretty much all of these scientific studies have come under fire from Monsanto and Monsanto paid minions like the Colorado State University who published a report stating that Bt toxin is not in any way dangerous for any mammal.  Monsanto funds a whole lot of research there, did anyone ever think they wouldn't refute and attempt to debunk anything showing Monsanto in a bad light.  Just today I got another form email from my favorite criminal in the Senate, John McCain telling me that GM crops are good for the world.   No one expects him, or any of the elected to dispute anything that Monsanto tells them.  Monsanto pays off sorry they contribute to the campaigns of most of the senate and congress.  Nary a bad word will ever be heard in the hallowed halls of congress.  So if Monsanto says that the research of these previously well respected scientists is pure crap, then congress wants to keep their Monsanto Masters happy and so they too believe with all their heart that it's all crap.  I don't know for sure, but I bet they all go home and eat organic.  I know for a fact the president does, the last two executive chefs at the white house have told us that the last four presidents only ate organic.  If I looked, I could find that youtube clip of Obama telling people back in 2008 that he would make it a priority to have a national law to label all GM foods.  He doesn't care about us, he eats organic anyway.

Seven items is not the whole enchilada, but it is pretty strong evidence that Genetically Modified foods and the way in which they are grown with the horrific use of glyphosate are not the wonderful and fantastic things that Monsanto claims they are.  There are a lot of things that need to be added to the enchilada dinner, the fact that the weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate and so the FDA has increased the allowable residues up past the toxicity level recommended by the EPA.  Insects everywhere are becoming immune to the Bt toxin and so ever greater amounts of stronger pesticides are sprayed on crops.  Bees are dying off now because of that.  Wheat is now contaminated with GM genes and some of the largest buyers of wheat are canceling orders for AmeriKan wheat.  And Monsanto denies responsibility for not containing the stuff.

There is just so much going on, that there isn't enough room here, or anywhere to list it all.  It would take a week to read it all, so let's stop here.  This is enough to think about.  At least for those that think about the food they eat, and are concerned that they, their children and their children's children will live healthy lives. 

What constitutes "News" sort of a review of my blog entry from June 12

Wednesday the twelfth blog entry HERE
I was thinking about what it is that is newsworthy.  Who decides that kind of stuff.  And of course, the biggest questions, why is it that stuff that is sooooooo important to the people of AmeriKa is never shown, printed or talked about.  I mean we do hear about politicians that do bad things, Marion Barry, the coke thing, you know, pretty silly, and yet pretty stupid of the District to re-elect the man.  There hasn't been an administration yet that didn't have scandal, and tons of money changing hands.  Criminy, Warren Harding and the infamous Teapot Dome Scandal.   Look at the Keating 5 here in Arizona, the two biggest thieves were Arizona senators.  One still serving (AGAIN SHOWING THE STUPIDITY ((or perhaps lack of interest)) OF VOTERS) and taking money from big business in ever increasing amounts.  And McCain is on the list of senators that voted to remove the protection afforded all citizens by the Bill of Rights. That right there should have been top news, every single news show should have been talking about how this is in fact the first step that the government is taking to remove the remaining Rights afforded to Americans by the Constitution.  WHY ISN'T THIS THE TOP STORY?  I've mentioned before how I read a lot of whacko crazy websites here.  Many of them are talking about how they believe the Feds want to take away their right to bear arms, to have free speech, and yet none have talked about this latest move by the Senate to take away rights afforded the States as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.  When you take away the first one, the one with the least effect on individual rights, then the next one or ones they take away will be easier to do.

I think that this is in fact how conspiracies are started.  When something happens that is newsworthy, the producers of the news on TV then look at it and determine what action to take.  Reporting the news takes a backseat to making money.  News reporting is in fact, a business.  The whole production is financed by commercials, a LOT of commercials.  And when news occurs that puts any specific business in a bad light, then that business has the option of pulling any commercials from that news show.  And of course the backlash would come from businesses in similar industries, they would feel that if those news people are so arrogant as to report bad news about one of their brethren, then they just might look into their own dealings and report on them as well.  Can't have that, no business wants their actions to be in the spotlight.  Because most big businesses are doing things that are illegal, immoral, and not in the best interest of the public.  Yes Virginia, it's true, businesses really do consider you as nothing more than a source of revenue and a statistic.  And of course the BIG concern is that you won't learn that bit of info, and that you will in fact breed lots of children consumers and they will assume your position as addict to consumerism.

Point of fact, there have never been any reports on major TV network news shows on any of the large numbers of reports showing the toxicity of Aspartame.  There has never been a report on the application to the USDA and FDA by big dairy to be able to ADD Aspartame to 17 of their products and NOT PUT IT ON THE LABEL.  I think that is big news.  But it seems that milk and yogurt commercials bringing in revenue are a whole lot bigger.  There has never been any news reports on any TV news shows about the huge Mercury contamination problem found in the production of High Fructose Corn Syrup.  In 2005 there was a huge report showing the contamination problem, HOW the HFCS was being contaminated, the test results showing Mercury in the HFCS and how the researchers went to stores and bought products with HFCS in them and tested them for Mercury.  Pretty scary when you do the simple math and find that a normal person drinking just 8 sodas a day, eating processed food products with HFCS would consume EIGHT TIMES the EPA daily limit for consumption of MERCURY.  Not a word about it.  And of course the funding to that researcher dried up so they can't repeat the tests to determine if the manufacturing methods have been upgraded to remove the Mercury contamination.  And of course the big ones are also all the research on Genetically Modified crops coming out the last few years.  No mention of them on TV news.  EVER!

A conspiracy.  An unintentional one maybe.  I don't think that the media even thinks about stuff like that as a conspiracy.  They think that news is a tornado, a shooting, a politician having extramarital sex, or selling and taking illegal substances.  That's news.  Reports from researchers showing that everyday products are toxic is pretty boring, and of course the obvious thing, that the manufacturers won't advertise those products if there are reports on possible toxicity.  Plus just the fact that they would take up a huge portion of their shows as there are so many of them coming out.  No one wants boring stuff about health when the latest teeny booper sensation was seen drinking alcohol.  Or some do nothing woman on a reality show cries about some man and her pregnancy.  Or anything else that happens with the fake world of celebrities.  Sorry, I have no idea what goes on there, I avoid that part of the news shows, it is all so stupid.  I have no idea why Kardashians are even in the news to tell you the truth, I really don't know who they are.  Just that one is pregnant.  So.  Senator Blunt took a hundred thousand dollars from Monsanto to add an amendment to the farm bill that would allow Monsanto to have immunity from liability for their toxic products.  I believe that to be more newsworthy than some bimbo whining. 

Sustainable Farming and the world economy, the collapse, the recovery, the lifeblood of the world.

Years ago I was sent by my company to go work in Parsippany New Jersey on a special project for a few months.  There were 8 of us, from facilities all over the country.  We had fun, it was hard work and yet the company was nice to us considering the nature of the company and how they ended up treating all their employees just a few short years afterwards.  By that I mean they took all the jobs and moved them to India.  And of course in the process the customer service rating of AT&T went from high to the lowest in the industry.  And they brought the jobs back to the US, and the pay rate for those same jobs then became LESS than half what I made when I worked for them.  Oh well, this isn't about that, it's about what I saw when working in Jersay, as they say it there.  (Just a side note here, why is it that people from that region of the country are unable to pronounce words with the vowel sounds that they are spelled with?)(( a quarter is not pronounced "quataa"))

Anyway, attempts to understand the natives aside, we were all able to utilize the rented cars for us and partake in the rich and exotic local offerings.  We went to the nude beach, ate at the diner from Seinfeld, sat in traffic a lot, and one Saturday, I found myself alone with a car, and I headed out to Amish country.  Not such a weird thing, I mean I have always been into healthy foods, I have done my home canning, made my own preserves and such.  And gardened.  So I headed out to the Mecca of sustainable farming, Amish country.  It was not a disappointment, even though there were tons of factory made furniture for sale everywhere all claiming to be Amish, and in each little town every little store sold what they claimed to be Amish preserves and such, even though most listed corn syrup on the ingredients.  But I drove out into the heart of the area, and stopped at roadside stands and talked to the people out there.  And learned a lot about how these people have raised crops and made a way of life for themselves and done it without electricity, chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and without the help of Monsanto. 

Some people think that it is not possible to grow commercial crops on a large scale without the use of chemical intervention.  And it certainly is something that is drummed into children in schools now, I mean it was something that was in all the textbooks when I was in school in the early sixties.  Chemicals make for greater  production at less costs and that is the only way to feed a hungry world.  I'm glad that isn't true.  Sustainable farming is something that works quite well with large commercial farms.  It's just that no one, or very few, want to try it.  Farmers all over the country are stuck in that cycle of it works, don't change anything mentality.  And of course the propoganda from Monsanto tells them that THEIR way is the only way to make money in America. 

Well, the reality is that the Monsanto way is the only way for Monsanto to make money.  Four things make up modern farming techniques.  Fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide and Genetically Modified crops.  The fact is that they are dependent on each other, and without one, the crops fail.  It is only by using all four that modern farming techniques succeed.  But there is an alternative, and it is by far and above extremely cost effective, more productive producing foods that are proven to contain higher quantities of essential nutrients, and have little to no damage to the environment.  If Monsanto could legally get away with killing off all the Amish to eliminate their example of how REAL farming works, they would.  They want to sweep them off the face of the planet so that farmers everywhere would only see the Monsanto way.  At least until the world population dies from starvation because of the failure of their system, the environment collapses from the horrific pollution problems and cancers and degenerative diseases kill off the rest of the population that don't starve to death. 

Yeah, doom and gloom, the sad part is that it is all true.  The use of neonicotinoid pesticides since about 2002 has led to the deaths of bees all over the world.  Along with other remarkable species like the Monarch butterfly.  The concentrations of this particular pesticide in drinking water in states in the corn and wheat belt is higher than the EPA suggested limit. These toxins are neurodisruptors and when consumed by humans cause Parkinson like symptoms.  For song birds and other birds that are beneficial to the environment by eating destructive insects, the stuff is fatal.  France has outlawed the stuff, other European countries are on the verge of doing the same.  The Russians refused to sit down to talks about farm exports until the United States takes action to reduce or ban them altogether. 

And the big chemical manufacturers keep making money.  Congress is funded by agribusiness.

There are very few congressmen and senators that would attempt to bite that hand that pays them. 

Well, they are paid by the US tax dollars aren't they?  Grow up!  Politicians don't get paid enough money to pay for reelection expenses.  They depend on the generosity of big businesses to pay them to do their bidding in exchange for buying them elections.  That's the scary part, if it was up to Monsanto, they would pay off their senators to make it open season on Amish and that would be how they would eliminate that threat to their monopoly on the farming industry in AmeriKa.  Fortunately, even Monsanto doesn't have enough money to pay for that.  Yet.

Anyway, let's just say that for now, if you, and all your friends want to eat food that is healthy, GM free, chemical toxin free, and grown in a manner that is good for the environment; then you have to BUY that kind of food.  There are sustainable farmers out there, they are in the minority, but they exist.  They will tell you that the higher production costs are offset by the premium that they receive for their crops at the retail level.  And of course even the wholesale prices of organic produce is far higher than conventional, and that makes the whole thing viable from an economic view.  (Sustainable Farming 1) (Sustainable Farming 2)  The thing is, that if we don't do something soon, then there will not be any choices left to us.  Fully a third of the food we eat is available to us because bees pollinate the crops.  If the pesticide levels get any higher in groundwater and the water systems then the entire ecosystem will fail.  Let alone what will happen with the huge numbers of people shaking and palsied and unable to work, drive, walk or do anything.  (these are not my predictions, see Dr. Mercola) 

I never thought about becoming Amish, but right now, it looks pretty good.  Well, right up until open season is legalized by a government that has time and again shown themselves that money in their pockets trumps the good and the livelihood of the populace at large.