Growing Hemp Legalized In United States

Story at-a-glance

• Hemp, a species of cannabis plant, has been valued since ancient times for its fibers and seeds, but it’s been illegal to grow in the U.S. for decades
• The 2018 Farm Bill included a section legalizing hemp production, paving the way for what many are calling the next big cash crop
• While both marijuana and hemp come from the cannabis plant, hemp is low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the substance that produces the “high” associated with marijuana
• Hemp is beneficial for the soil as it doesn’t require the use of pesticides and has a short growing cycle, making it sustainable
• Hemp is valued as an omega-3-rich plant food and fiber and has more than 25,000 industrial uses
• Many of hemp’s health benefits relate to its cannabidiol (CBD) content, which has been found to offer neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory benefits

Hemp, a species of cannabis plant, has been valued since ancient times for its fibers and seeds, but it’s been illegal to grow in the U.S. for decades. That all changed in late 2018 with the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. It included a section legalizing hemp production, paving the way for what many are calling the next big cash crop.
Hemp has many uses, ranging from food to fiber, but it’s also the source of the hemp-derived compound cannabidiol (CBD), which shows promising medical uses. The CBD market in the U.S. was estimated at $600 million in 2018, with projections shooting up over $20 billion by 2022.¹
The change in hemp’s legal status was a long time coming and paves the way for this beneficial plant to be treated like other crops, instead of an illegal substance.

The History of Hemp

The legalization of hemp is cause for celebration for more than just hemp supporters, who have been spearheading legalization attempts for decades. The move has ramifications for human health and the environment, now that this plant will no longer be treated as an illicit drug.
Hemp has been valued for thousands of years, with perhaps the oldest discovery of hemp dating back to a piece of hemp fabric from 8,000 B.C.² As noted by the National Hemp Association, hemp has been used throughout the world for centuries:³

“The spread of cannabis took place from China to the Middle East and the Mediterranean area and, subsequently, to Europe, probably via nomadic peoples. Starting around the year 600, the Germans, Frankish tribes and Vikings produced rope, cloth and garments from hemp fiber.

In the Middle Ages, most people wore hemp sandals. Many farmers grew hemp on a small scale. Since the Middle Ages, the industrial use of hemp has seen a number of peaks.”

In the 17th century, for instance, ships took to the seas with sails and lines made from braided hemp fibers. Hemp clothing was also popular, and Rembrandt used hemp paper for sketching. In the U.S., Presidents Washington and Jefferson grew hemp, and according to the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), “Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic.”⁴
By the 19th century, however, alternative materials like cotton and wood pulp began to take hemp’s place, making it less popular. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, which grouped hemp with marijuana, making hemp sales heavily taxed. The financial strain caused may hemp businesses to close and the hemp industry further declined.⁵
WWII brought with it a brief boost for hemp, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) encouraging U.S. farmers to grow the plant and the government offering subsidies for hemp cultivation. About 1 million acres of hemp were planted in the U.S. during that time, and the stiff fiber was used to make parachutes, uniforms, tarps and other products useful to the war industry.
“After the war ended, the government quietly shut down all the hemp processing plants and the industry faded away again,” the HIA noted.⁶ The final nail in the coffin came with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which grouped hemp and marijuana together as Schedule 1 substances, a classification reserved for drugs with "high potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical use."
Three years later the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was formed to enforce the newly created drug schedules, and the fight against marijuana and hemp use began.

Marijuana Versus Hemp: What’s the Difference?

While both marijuana and hemp come from the cannabis plant, hemp is low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the substance that produces the “high” associated with marijuana use. Whereas hemp typically contains 0.3 percent THC or less, marijuana may contain anywhere from 5 to 35 percent THC, according to HIA.
Interestingly, the 0.3 percent for THC in hemp came about quite by accident when a couple of Canadian scientists designated that number in a 1976 report they wrote on the two plants. Later, the DEA used the same number when they were formulating rules to ban hemp and all products with THC in them. The 0.3 percent later became part of federal law with the 2014 Farm Bill, explained later in this article.⁷
And while the THC percentage varies in marijuana depending on which part of the plant is used, the Alcohol & Drug Institute at the University of Washington says the average THC in marijuana dried leaves and buds in the U.S. can vary from less than1 percent to 20 percent.⁸
Marijuana is typically used for medicinal or recreational purposes, whereas hemp can be used for a variety of applications ranging from food and medicine to clothing, construction, body care and even plastic. You can’t get high from hemp, but its high CBD content makes it attractive for medicinal purposes.
Further, whereas marijuana must be grown in a carefully controlled atmosphere, hemp is easy to grow and thrives in most climates. Generally speaking, cannabis sativa, which has long and narrow leaves, is grown outdoors and has higher CBD and low THC, producing no psychoactive effects.
Cannabis idica, on the other hand, has shorter, wider leaves, grows best indoors and contains higher THC, which produces the high most recreational marijuana users are after.
However, because many hybrids have been produced, it’s not possible to identify these qualities from plant name alone.⁹ According to the 2014 Farm Bill, hemp refers to cannabis sativa plants containing 0.3 percent or less of THC, and that definition remained unchanged in the 2018 Bill.

The Slow Progress Toward Hemp Legalization in the US

In 2013, Colorado legalized industrial hemp farming for commercial and research purposes, provided the farmers verified the THC levels and paid for a permit. In 2014, the Farm Bill also included a section that allowed hemp cultivation for select research and pilot programs, and dozens of states introduced pro-hemp legislation to follow.
By 2017, nearly 26,000 acres of hemp were being grown in 19 states.¹⁰ Still, in a major waste of taxpayer dollars, the DEA would target hemp farmers. Ministry of Hemp noted that prior to the 2018 legalization:¹¹

“[F]armers in all these states still risk being raided by the DEA, going to prison, and losing their property because the federal policy fail[ed] to distinguish non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of industrial hemp from the psychoactive drug varieties (i.e., ‘marijuana’)”

Now that hemp has been legalized, it removes restrictions for crop insurance, banking and other barriers to farmers looking for a profitable crop. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spearheaded the bill, believes hemp could replace tobacco as a new cash crop, stating:¹²

“At a time when farm income is down and growers are struggling, industrial hemp is a bright spot of agriculture’s future. My provision in the Farm Bill will not only legalize domestic hemp, but it will also allow state departments of agriculture to be responsible for its oversight.”

What’s more, hemp is sometimes described as a miracle crop, providing sustainable material to replace trees for paper, for instance, because it has a growing cycle of just four to six months. Hemp is beneficial for the soil as well, as it doesn’t require the use of pesticides due to its dense, deep roots, which repel weeds naturally.¹³
Because it grows so close together, hemp can be grown in tight spaces, decreasing land use while still leading to high yields because of its fast growing rate. Basically, hemp grows like a weed, tolerating a variety of climates and soil types, and requiring relatively little water. It was even used to extract toxins from the soil at Chernobyl.¹⁴

What Will the Legalization of Hemp Mean for CBD Products?

With hemp’s legalization, CBD products, which are already on the upswing, are set to take off. Their legal status is another issue entirely. CBD is technically illegal according to the DEA, and it’s unclear whether it will be reclassified. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, classifies CBD as a drug and has no plans to change that. In a statement, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said:¹⁵

“[T]he FDA requires a cannabis product (hemp-derived or otherwise) that is marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit, or with any other disease claim, to be approved by the FDA for its intended use before it may be introduced into interstate commerce. This is the same standard to which we hold any product marketed as a drug for human or animal use.

Cannabis and cannabis-derived products claiming in their marketing and promotional materials that they’re intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases (such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatric disorders and diabetes) are considered new drugs or new animal drugs and must go through the FDA drug approval process for human or animal use before they are marketed in the U.S.”

CBD can come from either marijuana or hemp. Again, the distinction between these two plants hinges on the THC content. Hemp has very little if any THC, whereas marijuana will have varying amounts of THC. Hemp products such as hemp oil and hemp extract are legal.
So even though they may have small amounts of CBD, hemp products such as hemp oil can be lawfully marketed, provided they don’t reference CBD or claim to cure any diseases. This is a potential loophole the CBD industry could use. The drawback is hemp products may not have much CBD in them, and they may not be clinically effective.
That being said, the new legal status will open up hemp and CBD for research, potentially leading to more definitive knowledge about proper dosing and usage. And as noted by the Ministry of Hemp, “Attitudes are already changing. Even before being signed into law, the 2018 Farm Bill inspired the Alabama state attorney general to back off from plans to prosecute CBD stores.”¹⁶

The Many Benefits of Hemp

The hoopla over hemp is well deserved. Its seeds contain nearly as much protein as soybeans and all nine essential amino acids, especially arginine, which is beneficial for heart health.
Two main proteins in hemp seed protein, albumin and edestin, are rich in essential amino acids, with profiles comparable to egg white. Hemp's edestin content is among the highest of all plants. Hemp protein is also easy to digest because of its lack of oligosaccharides and trypsin inhibitors, which can affect protein absorption.
Hemp seeds are also an excellent source of plant-based omega-3s and include a balanced 1-to-3 ratio of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Hemp seeds, especially those with the hulls intact, are also rich in fiber and contain a variety of vitamins and minerals, including vitamin E, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, zinc and B vitamins.
Many of hemp’s health benefits relate to its CBD content as well, which has been found to offer neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory benefits.¹⁷ Potential uses for CBD and other hemp extracts include:^18,19

Parkinson’s disease	Alzheimer’s disease	Multiple sclerosis
Neuropathic pain	Childhood seizure disorders	Schizophrenia
Anxiety	Depression	Addiction
Posttraumatic stress disorder	Pain	Vomiting and nausea

Medicinal uses aside, hemp seed oil is used in body care products while the fiber can be used to make fabric, clothing, paper and even a recyclable hemp plastic and hemp concrete. There are reportedly more than 25,000 industrial uses for hemp,²⁰ and this probably only scratches the surface of what this versatile plant is good for.
The legalization of hemp in the U.S. will now make it easier for humans and the environment alike to enjoy the benefits of this natural wonder plant once again.

Read more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/01/08/growing-industrial-hemp-legalization.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20190108Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM259304&et_rid=514332196

Roundup weedkiller more toxic than just glyphosate alone… alarming new findings reveal NON-active ingredients are poisons, too

Just how toxic is Monsanto’s most prolific herbicide, Roundup? While the active ingredient, glyphosate, has long been scrutinized, new research shows that active ingredients in pesticides and herbicides aren’t the only things people should be worried about. As many people have suspected, the so-called “inactive” ingredients featured in weedkillers like Roundup are not so benign after all.
What’s more disturbing: The fact that these purportedly innocuous ingredients are actually poison, or that we’re only just uncovering this sordid detail 40-some-odd years after Roundup’s debut? EPA estimates suggest that around 100 million pounds of Roundup are applied to farms and lawns across the U.S. every year. Just how deep does the Roundup rabbit hole go?

Science shows Roundup is pure poison

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently conducted its first-ever analysis of herbicide formulations that include glyphosate and other chemicals. Apparently, it’s taken over four decades for the government to suspect that perhaps, when glyphosate is combined with other chemicals, it becomes even more hazardous.
As The Guardian explains, while regulators have required that glyphosate be tested in isolation in the past, little to no research has been done on the actual formulations including glyphosate that are sold to consumers.
You might say that this method of handling pesticide regulation is ineffectual — and you’d be right. And it’s only taken forty years for the government to realize this?

Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.

The EPA requested that the NTP conduct an investigation of glyphosate-containing pesticides after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) named glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.”
The NTP study has shown that glyphosate formulations are more dangerous than glyphosate is on its own. In their summary, NTP scientists say that glyphosate formulations reduced human cell “viability,” causing disruption in cell membranes.
The Guardian notes further that the NTP’s data shows enhanced toxicity from glyphosate formulations, along with an ability to kill human cells — but the organization is still averse to drawing any sort of meaningful conclusion from their work.
As is typical of government agencies, the NTP is reluctant to say more than that; Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP lab, told the Guardian, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.” Seriously? DeVito says more research is needed, but also noted that they don’t even know what Monsanto actually puts into Roundup.
“We don’t know what the formulation is. That is confidential business information,” he commented. Isn’t that just great? If they don’t know what the formulation is, how can they really prove anything? Maybe that’s the point.

Past research shows similar findings

There are over 4,000 “inert” ingredients approved by the EPA for use in pesticides. These include things like solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other goodies.
In 2015, a study from France showed that the purportedly inactive ingredients in Roundup “amplified its toxicity.” Researchers at the University of Caen found that one “inert” ingredient in particular, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was exceptionally toxic.
As Scientific American reported:

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

Despite Monsanto’s attempts at refuting the findings, the French researchers were hopeful that their evidence would inspire health agencies to reevaluate Roundup’s safety. When this research is taken along with the IARC’s contention that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, it raises serious questions about the safety of this ubiquitous herbicide. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that Roundup is more toxic than anyone appears to be willing to admit.

The great Roundup deception

No one, not even Monsanto itself, seems to be able to accurately gauge the toxicity of Roundup. Government agencies, like NTP, say that they can’t have access to the actual formulation of Roundup. This means that even if they come to an “unfavorable” conclusion, there will always be room for Monsanto’s products to have a “get out of jail free” card, because they weren’t able to test the real thing.
Federal documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show that even the EPA is not sure what current formulations for Roundup contain. The NTP has also admitted they don’t really know what’s in Roundup. It’s “confidential,” so no on can ever know what’s in it, apparently — even for the sole purpose of establishing the product’s safety (or lack of it). And we’re not supposed to find that suspicious?
While the government increases their surveillance of innocent people, they’re also letting Monsanto pollute the world with a substance of unknown contents and an immeasurable potential to cause harm. Isn’t that something?
Further, Monsanto itself has been lying about the alleged safety of their flagship product, Roundup. Once again living up to their reputation as the “world’s most evil corporation,” internal emails show that despite being Roundup’s manufacturer, they themselves have no idea what their beloved weedkiller is capable of.
In a 2003 email, a Monsanto scientist  reportedly wrote, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”
In 2010, another email exchange revealed this gem: “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly.” So, Monsanto has never actually tested the Roundup product itself — only the glyphosate — which also comes with its fair share of health risks. When will we learn: Corporations can’t be trusted to police themselves.
Stay up-to-date on the latest science on glyphosate at Glyphosate.news.
Sources for this article include:
TheGuardian.com
ScientificAmerican.com
EcoWatch.com

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-10-roundup-weedkiller-more-toxic-than-just-glyphosate-alone-non-active-ingredients-are-poisons.html

FDA hid glyphosate findings from the public after finding weed killer contamination in nearly ALL food

Shocking internal emails, uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act, have revealed yet another scandal: The FDA knew that the toxic weed killer, glyphosate, was contaminating the U.S. food supply — and ignored the dangerous threat posed to American consumers. Apparently, the finding of glyphosate in heavily consumed products like granola bars and corn is of no concern to FDA officials; supervisors have reportedly declared that the glyphosate present in these items doesn’t count because they aren’t part of the agency’s “official” report.
Science be damned; the federal government has a report to write — and now, some are wondering if perhaps somebody, somewhere has already told them what to put in it.
For decades, the FDA has been responsible for testing food samples to ensure that specific quality standards are met. This includes monitoring foods for illegally high amounts of pesticide residues. Until recently, however, the FDA had not been testing for glyphosate residues — a fact that drew much scrutiny from the Government Accountability Office, as well as consumer watchdog organizations.
Glyphosate in and of itself has drawn a lot of criticism, due to its litany of adverse effects on human health and the environment.  The star ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup came under fire in 2015, after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen.”  Some research has shown that increasing use of this pesticide may be contributing to the rapid decline of bee populations, as well.

Get CLEAN FOOD and help support our mission to keep you informed: The Health Ranger Store lab verifies everything we sell with accredited testing for heavy metals, microbiology and food safety. Certified organic facility, ISO-accredited on-site laboratory, no GMOs or synthetic ingredients. The world's #1 source of lab-verified clean foods and superfoods for nutritional healing. 600+ products available. Explore now.

Now a string of emails from the FDA show that multiple FDA scientists have found concerning levels of glyphosate residue in everyday foods. In separate investigations, chemists Richard Thompson and Narong Chamkasem found traces of glyphosate that exceeded legal amounts in different foods.
In one email, Thompson wrote to his colleagues, “I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them,” and noted that only his broccoli sample seemed to be free of glyphosate.
Chamkasem’s findings were similar, with the chemist noting that there were exceptionally high amounts of glyphosate residue in corn. In an internal FDA email, Chamkasem reported that they had detected glyphosate in corn at 6.5 parts per million, while the legal limit is 5.0 ppm.
“These emails shatter any remaining faith in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration operating as some sort of defender of public health,” explained Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, founder of CWC Labs and author of Food Forensics. “The fact that the FDA deliberately withheld these alarming findings from the public speaks volumes about the real motivations of this failed agency,” Adams added. “It’s clear to every scientifically-minded person that the FDA goes out of its way to hide the truth about agricultural chemicals in the food supply, most likely to protect the financial interests of chemical pesticide and herbicide corporations which wield tremendous influence over government regulators.”

How the FDA buried its findings while food consumers continued to eat cancer-linked weed killer chemicals

Perhaps what’s most concerning about this is that a supervisor at the FDA essentially waved off this finding. Normally, The Guardian explains, a finding like this is reported to the EPA. However, an FDA supervisor wrote to an EPA official, declaring that the corn tested by Chamkasem was not an “official” sample.
Chamkasem also reportedly uncovered glyphosate residues in oatmeal products and honey in 2016. FDA documents show that after announcing these findings, Chamkasem’s lab was “reassigned to other programs” and the entire investigation was actually suspended temporarily. Again, the FDA declared that these items were not part of their glyphosate residue review.
The fact that foods like wheat and oats are not part of the FDA review is actually highly concerning, as it’s become well-known that farmers use glyphosate as a desiccant. Wheat, oats and other foods are commonly sprayed with glyphosate late in the season to hasten the harvesting process. So, there’s plenty of reason to suspect these foods are also contaminated, even if they aren’t supposed to be treated with glyphosate.
But sadly, as The Guardian notes further, it seems unlikely that either Thompson’s or Chamkasem’s findings will be included in the official FDA report. When asked about glyphosate testing, an FDA spokesperson reportedly stated that “the FDA had not found any illegal levels in corn, soy, milk or eggs, the four commodities it considers part of its glyphosate ‘special assignment.’ The “unofficial findings” from the emails were not addressed.
As usual, big government operates on its own agenda — who is going to hold these people accountable? Read more news on glyphosate at Glyphosate.news.
Sources for this article include:
TheGuardian.com
USRTK.org
TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com

Read more:  https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-02-fda-hid-glyphosate-findings-from-the-public-weed-killer-contamination-in-nearly-all-food.html

Top 8 organic MISTAKES most people make because they have not done the research

There are no absolutes when it comes to a healthy lifestyle and clean eating. Many foods that were perfectly wholesome just months ago may be tainted and contaminated now if the farmer, company or corporation that makes them changed even just a few key ingredients, or worse yet, sold out to “Big Food.” Nothing is 100 percent reliable either. People jump on diet bandwagons and think some new fad is the “be all, end all” of diets and if they can just stick to it they’ve “got it made.” Wrong.
There are holes in every game, and exceptions to every rule. There are major problems with labels like “all natural” and “gluten free,” but we’ll save those topics for another article. If you thought going 80 percent or 90 percent or even 100 percent organic was “all good,” then you’ve got a bit more homework to do, but don’t worry, we’ve got your back. Let’s talk about organic mistakes millions of people are making and exactly why, so we can all stay on track with eating clean daily.

#1. Buying from organic companies that sold out to Big Food’s evil corporations

If you’re one of those smart shoppers who buys mainly organic, you better take a second look at “who” you’re buying, instead of just “what” you’re buying. Over the past few years, several smaller organic companies sold out to huge corporations so they could retire and enjoy the good life. Problem is that “good ole” company is now a bastard child of Big Food, and you can bet all the products that were once clean are now polluted with toxic foods, even though they’re still organic. Yes, it’s true. Big Food loves to push unfermented soy and rapeseed (canola) on us, and even when they’re organic they’re still bad for the body over the long term. Watch out for those high estrogen levels and that coagulating blood! Nothing good comes from it.
Here are some examples in case you aren’t up to date on the “who owns who” of the organic world of tainted food. Purdue Farms owns Hans. Coca Cola owns Suja juice, Green Mountain Coffee and Honest Tea. Not so “honest” anymore, huh? Campbell Soup Company owns Wolfgang Puck, Plum Organics and Bolthouse Farms. Nestle owns Sweet Leaf Tea and Tribe Mediterranean Foods. Pepsi owns Naked Juice and Stacy’s Pita Chips.
Wait, there are more. Hain Celestial owns Spectrum Organics, Garden of Eatin and Ella’s Kitchen, just to name a few. Kellogg owns Bare Naked, Kashi and Morningstar Farms. Did you know J.M. Smucker owns Santa Cruz Organic? You should also know that General Mills owns Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, LaraBar and Annie’s Homegrown – the latter of which might not be so “homegrown” anymore.

#2. Buying organic foods that contain canola

Organic or not, canola oil is synthetic oil bred from its parent rapeseed. Big Food needed a cheap substitute for imported coconut oil and palm oil and bam! A creative Canadian scientist took the most toxic of all food-oil plants and reduced the toxicity to meet FDA “standards” (nothing to write home about). Canola oil is still toxic even when it contains zero pesticides, and that’s why it doesn’t matter if it carries the “certified organic” seal of approval from the USDA.
Studies of rats consuming canola revealed degeneration of the heart, kidneys, thyroid gland and adrenals. As soon as the scientists withdrew canola from the rats’ feed, the health damage rescinded. Don’t forget, humans are animals too, with 96 percent the same DNA as the rest of the animals on planet Earth, so don’t think this alarming canola research doesn’t apply to us. Canola oil is high in glycosides, which means it inhibits enzyme function and destroys the protective coating surrounding your nerves, and once that sheath is gone, you’re done for. Nerve damage sets in.
Canola oil, over the long term, can cause emphysema, constipation and respiratory distress. Don’t be fooled by the happy little term “expeller pressed.” It doesn’t matter because canola still carries the mutated rapeseed genes. Big Food still has to bleach it and deodorize it to remove the stink. Almost all organic mayonnaise products and organic salad dressings are loaded with canola or soy or both! Watch out.

#3. Buying organic foods that contain unfermented soy

Just since the year 2000, U.S. food manufacturers have introduced over 3,000 soy-based foods, many of which are labeled “certified organic,” but does that even matter? Any soy that is unfermented, whether organic or not, is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline. In fact, no soy was fit to eat until the discovery of fermentation techniques during the Chou Dynasty. Anyone eating unfermented soy would suffer from eating anti-nutrient toxins that block the enzymes humans need for protein digestion, and that’s at just two tablespoons a day.
Hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies thanks to soy consumption. If you read or hear about the benefits of soy, they’re talking about fermented soy only. Most organic mayonnaise products and organic salad dressings are loaded with canola or soy or both! Watch out.

#4. Buying anything “certified organic” that was grown in China

With three times the population of America, China suffers major environmental pollution problems, including waste management, industrial and agricultural contamination, pharmaceutical contamination, plus inadequate water treatment. At least 70 percent of China’s water is so polluted it’s deemed unsafe for human contact. Some of the rivers there have such high metal content that they literally run red from rust. That means even if food is grown organically without pesticide use, it’s still contaminated across the board.

#5. Assuming that “USDA certified organic” means no heavy metal toxins

The USDA does not inspect certified organic food for heavy metal toxins at all. That would include lead, aluminum, mercury, nickel, copper, tungsten and arsenic. Can you believe it? You can have your levels tested by a Naturopathic Physician. Your best bet is to avoid all organic food that’s imported from China – the most polluted industrial nation in the world.

#6. Putting organic food in the microwave oven

The “nuker” not only destroys nutritive qualities of food within seconds, but produces wave energy radiation that interacts with food molecules, changing their polarity from positive to negative at millions of times per second. This severe agitation and friction bombards the food and forcefully deforms it. The scientific name for this is “structural isomerism.”

#7. Cooking organic meat on an outdoor grill

Even if meat is organic, when you grill it at high temperature and fat drips onto the heat source, potent carcinogens are created called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). There is also a chemical reaction between the amino acids and creatine in the meat that forms dangerous heterocyclic amines (HCA’s). Lastly, you’re increasing the amount of advanced glycolytic enzymes (AGE’s) already present in the meat, causing inflammation and oxidative damage to tissues in your body.

#8. Boiling organic vegetables in water you got from the tap

You can’t boil out cancer-causing, IQ-lowering sodium fluoride from tap water. You need a high quality water filtration system like Big Berkey to do that. Don’t pollute your clean food with toxic tap water. Enough said.
Sources for this article include:
Cornucopia.org
NaturalNews.com
Koshland-Science-Museum.org
NaturalNews.com
FDA.news
News.BBC

read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-23-top-8-organic-mistakes-most-people-make-because-they-have-not-done-the-research.html

Glyphosate was patented as an antibiotic … is this contributing to antibiotic resistance?

For decades, the environment – rivers, lakes, fields, humans, livestock and wildlife – has been exposed to the toxic effects of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup. The chemical, classified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2015, has been linked to kidney disease, liver damage, birth defects, cancers, Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and more.
Plus, as if this situation weren’t outrageous enough, troubling news is emerging about one of glyphosate’s less well-known properties. It turns out that glyphosate is also an antibiotic, and has been registered as such by the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto.

Shocking new study about glyphosate reveals an alarming prospect

The very concept of resistant bacteria – in which mutating microorganisms become immune to the effects of antibiotics – is the stuff of nightmares, with resistant bacterial infections exacting a very real toll. According to the CDC, MRSA – or methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus – claims over 11,000 lives a year.
Now, add glyphosate to the list of substances that can fuel antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In a study conducted at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, researchers found that exposure to common herbicides – such as glyphosate and dicamba – caused bacteria to change their response to antibiotics, allowing them to display increased resistance.
The results were so surprising that the researchers feared some sort of error or contamination had affected their results. They enlisted a colleague at a different university to conduct the same experiments – and the findings were reproduced.

Glyphosate seems to “target” beneficial bacteria

And the harm from glyphosate doesn’t stop with its contribution to antibiotic resistance.
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with a system called the shikamate pathway that regulates the synthesis of amino acids. As apologists for Monsanto never tire of pointing out, the shikamate pathway doesn’t exist in humans. But it does exist in bacteria – including the beneficial bacteria on which we depend for synthesis of amino acids.
Natural health experts have long insisted that glyphosate exposure can cause depletion of the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine – thereby setting the stage for obesity, autism and depression, as well as neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.
Researchers know from studies on chicken and cattle that ingestion of glyphosate can destroy beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, while leaving dangerous bacterial pathogens – such as salmonella and E. coli – unharmed. There is no reason to believe glyphosate isn’t causing the same harm to humans – giving rise to the current epidemic of gastrointestinal conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and leaky gut.
In an article published in the scientific journal Entropy, the authors concluded that glyphosate could be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases that have become prevalent in Western societies.

Glyphosate’s toxic history is marked by skyrocketing use on food crops

Glyphosate, which has been in use since the 1970s, was initially only sprayed on weeds. But with the development of genetically engineered, glyphosate-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops, the herbicide is now sprayed liberally on food crops – with glyphosate use doubling between 2001 and 2007 alone.
In a sickening chain of contamination, animals ingest glyphosate-laden feed, and humans then consume the meat – often along with produce that has been sprayed directly with Roundup. In this way, an unprescribed (and unsafe) drug succeeds in making its way from stockyards and fields to your plate, probably several times a day.

Monsanto’s glib reassurances are ridiculous

Monsanto continues to insist that glyphosate is not toxic to humans, which is laughable enough. But the company’s defense against concerns about glyphosate residue fueling antibiotic resistance take the word “ridiculous” to new levels. You can read it for yourself here.
Claiming that it is routine for companies to patent for “reasonable “ potential uses, Monsanto goes to considerable lengths to point out that glyphosate, “when used as recommended,” is not “concentrated” enough to function as a clinical antibiotic.
First, note the sanctimonious use of the disclaimer “when used as recommended.” As demonstrated by the heartbreaking accidental pesticide poisoning of four Texas children in January, chemicals are not always “used as recommended.” Human error, accident and mishap are an unfortunate reality.
Monsanto insists that the concentrations aren’t high enough to make glyphosate “clinically effective” as an antibiotic – but is clinical effectiveness even the point? Who knows at what concentration bacteria begin to develop resistance? Does anyone feel like gambling?
It’s worth nothing that a recent animal study showed that liver damage resulted from amounts of glyphosate that were many times lower than that allowed in tap water for human consumption. If damage can occur at those low levels, why not antibiotic resistance?

What you can do to reduce your exposure to glyphosate

The first step, of course, is avoiding the use of Roundup on your lawn and garden – and encouraging others to bypass it as well.  Say “no” to processed foods, “fast food” and junk food. Opt for grass-fed meat, pastured poultry, and certified organic products – which are guaranteed to be free of toxic pesticides and GMOs.
Glyphosate – a carcinogen, toxin, endocrine disruptor and DNA mutagen – has now been revealed as an antibiotic. And, the infuriating fact is: we’ve all been used like guinea pigs for this noxious chemical experiment.
References:
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/24/new-study-shows-roundup-herbicide-causes-antibiotic-resistance-in-bacteria/#.WMUMkVXyvIV

Read more: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/glyphosate-roundup-2170.html

The Truth About Monsanto You Need to Know

By Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety
Most of us have told a lie a time or two and probably a variety of them. For example, there is the excuse lie as in the timeless “my dog at my homework,” and the proverbial “white lie” as in “No you really do look great in those jeans.”
But the “The Big Lie” is different. The term refers to a propaganda or advertising technique by which first you say the opposite of an obvious truth about an event or product, and then keep repeating and repeating that lie until it becomes an unquestioned mantra for the public. So no matter how much the lie defies common sense it over time becomes commonplace.
Take the iconic marketing campaign promoting Coca Cola. You’ll easily recall the endlessly repeated mantra: “Coke, it’s the real thing.” Well, whatever you may think of Coke, not much in my estimation, it is anything but the real thing. It’s highly processed, is laden with high fructose corn syrup derived from GMO corn, contains caramel coloring and it goes downhill from there. So the ad is obviously the exact opposite of the truth. But repeated countless times the slogan becomes accepted without thought.
Here’s another favorite example, the AT&T telephone ad campaign, “Reach out and touch someone.” Certainly phones can be great but as anyone separated from a loved one knows, to their great frustration, the one thing you can’t do with them is actually reach out and touch that important someone. You are actually just touching the dial pad and handset. Again, a mantra that is obviously false but was repeated so often it almost made sense.
Similarly, for more than two decades the promotion of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the United States and worldwide has been based on the Big Lie. Led by Monsanto’s aggressive international marketing campaign the mantra has been, and still is, that GE crops “reduce pesticide use, increase yield and are key to feeding the world.”
I have been working on this issue for decades and during that time have seen that virtually every major media story on GE crops began with this “Big Lie” claim, and using almost identical language. These claims, as with those in the Coke and AT&T commercials, defy common sense.
Monsanto and the other leaders in promoting GE crops—Dow, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer—are all chemical companies that make tens of billions of dollars in profits by selling ever more pesticides, especially herbicides. Why would they spend hundreds of millions of research dollars and then billions in advertising and lobbying to promote crops that actually “reduce pesticides” and thereby destroy their bottom line?
Are these companies committing economic suicide in an altruistic attempt to feed the world? Obviously not. You can accuse Monsanto of many things, including myriad corporate crimes over many decades, but altruism is not one of them. As my organization and many others have scientifically demonstrated many times to a deaf media, the vast majority of GMOs are not designed to decrease herbicide use but to massively increase it.
More than 90% of US corn, soy, cotton, and sugar beets have been genetically engineered to withstand massive doses of the toxic herbicides these companies make, and profit from. Normally care has to be taken using herbicides because they kill not just weeds but anything green, including the crops they come into contact with. But with these herbicide tolerant crops large-scale operations can even conduct aerial spraying of their fields with these herbicides and the weeds die but the crops survive.
Because of GE crops, each year, more than 100 million more pounds of Roundup are used on America’s croplands each year. These toxic chemicals pollute our water and air, kill wildlife and native plants and threaten the very survival of the monarch butterfly and other species. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s research arm found that the active ingredient in Roundup is a “probable carcinogen.” So for Monsanto and the other chemical companies, genetically engineering crops is just another way to significantly increase profits. They sell the seeds and the poisons sprayed on those seeds. Great for their bottom line, terrible for the rest of us and the planet.
What about the Big Lie about increased yield and feeding the world? Well in 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists published a definitive report called “Failure to Yield,” which made it clear that there was no significant yield increase with GE crops. Despite the clear title and message the media entranced with the Big Lie barely noticed.
But as Martin Luther King, Jr. liked to say, “No lie can live forever.” And in the waning weeks of the recent contentious and dispiriting election campaign, a surprising ray of light illuminated the longstanding GE crops debate. Remarkably, the source was the New York Times, which for so many years had ignored the science about genetic engineering and bought the Big Lie. But in a front-page story, the Times became among the first mainstream media sources to debunk the Big Lie about GMOs.
The newspaper story was based on research comparing pesticide use and yield between the United States, where genetic engineering has dominated major crops, and Western Europe, which did not embrace the technology. They found that overall the use of herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup had increased by more than 20% in the United States since the introduction of GE crops, while during the same time period herbicide use in France, Europe’s biggest crop producer, had not only not increased but actually decreased by 36 percent.

Read more: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/food-and-the-environment/monsanto-gmos-truth/?utm_campaign=frn16&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-automated&utm_content=2335&utm_term=existing-email-list&email=subzerohc%40yahoo.com&firstname=John&lastname=Zahos

New Study Shows Major Molecular Differences between GMO and Non-GMO Corn

A unique new study published Monday in the scientific journal Nature has used molecular profiles to reveal major differences in composition between a GMO corn and its non-GMO parent. These findings question industry and regulatory position of “substantial equivalence” and have serious safety implications.

The new peer-reviewed study led by Dr Michael Antoniou at King’s College London describes the effects of the process of genetic engineering on the composition of a genetically modified Roundup-resistant GMO corn variety, NK603.
“Our study clearly shows that the GM transformation process results in profound compositional differences in NK603, demonstrating that this GMO corn is not substantially equivalent to its non-GMO counterpart. The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamine, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrite in meat products. Our results call for a more thorough evaluation of the safety of NK603 corn consumption on a long-term basis.” Dr. Antoniou stated.
In-depth analysis of types of proteins (“proteomics”) and small biochemical molecules (“metabolomics”) revealed major compositional differences between NK603 and its non-GMO parent. The results obtained show not only disturbances in energy utilisation and oxidative stress (damage to cells and tissues by reactive oxygen), but worryingly large increases in certain substances (polyamines).
Polyamines found to be present in increased amounts in GMO NK603 corn include putrescine and cadaverine, which can produce various toxic effects. For example, they enhance the effects of histamine, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic substances called nitrosamines.
Overall, the findings of this study disprove industry and regulatory agency claims that NK603 is ‘substantially equivalent’ to its non-GMO counterpart and suggest that a more thorough evaluation of the safety of consuming products derived from this GMO corn on a long term basis should be undertaken.
Background to study

1. The establishment of compositional ‘substantial equivalence’ is a key starting point requested by regulatory agencies for assessing the safety of a GMO crop and food. If analysis for nutrients and known toxins shows that the composition of a GMO crop is found to be in a similar range to that present in a corresponding, genetically similar non-GMO variety (often the non-GMO parent), then it is deemed to be ‘substantially equivalent’ and to require little, if any, further safety testing, especially in the USA.
2. Genetically modified (GM) corn NK603, engineered to survive being sprayed with glyphosate based weedkillers such as Roundup, was assessed as ‘substantially equivalent’ to its non-GM parent corn variety, based on a nutrient composition analysis of both crops. It was subsequently granted market approval.
3. However, the nutrient compositional analysis is relatively crude and may miss subtle yet important differences between the GMO and non-GMO food, which could have health consequences for the consumer. For example, the compositional analysis includes measurement of total protein content, yet this is less important than the profile of different types of proteins. In other words, the message is in the detail, yet this detail is currently lacking in regulatory analysis investigating the substantial equivalence of a product.
4. This gap in compositional information for the Roundup-tolerant NK603 corn was addressed in this study by analysing this GMO with the nearest non-GMO corn variety as a control. The two crops were grown under similar conditions, in the same location and season, spaced at a sufficient distance to avoid cross-contamination. One field of NK603 was sprayed once with Roundup, whilst another field of NK603 was not treated with Roundup. Samples were produced in two cultivation cycles over two growing seasons. Thus all precautions were taken to minimise environmental factors that could influence the composition of the crops. The result is a comparative analysis that specifically highlights the effect of the genetic modification (GM) transformation process.
5. Rats fed this GMO corn over 2 years presented signs of a higher incidence of liver and kidney damage (Séralini et al., Environmental Sciences Europe, 26:14) compared with controls.

Analytical methods used
Analytical methods collectively known as “omics” technologies can be used to obtain an in-depth, molecular composition profile of a biological system/substance. These technologies include transcriptomics (gene function profile), proteomics (protein type profile) and metabolomics (small biochemical metabolite profile). Unlike gross nutrient analysis, omics technologies provide highly detailed molecular composition and biological functional information with a very high degree of predictability of health or disease status.
In this study Dr Antoniou and colleagues have undertaken proteomics (protein profiling) and metabolomics (small biochemical profiling) analyses, comparing NK603 with its non-GMO counterpart in order to deepen the understanding of the effects of the GM transformation process used to generate this variety of GMO corn. In addition, NK603 cultivated either with or without being sprayed with Roundup was also investigated in order to determine the effects, if any, of this weedkiller on the biochemistry and hence composition of this GMO corn.
This broad range of analysis is designed to ascertain more deeply and precisely whether NK603 is truly ‘substantially equivalent’ to its corresponding non-GMO variety and whether this raises any health concerns.
Findings

1. A total of 117 proteins and 91 small molecule biochemicals (metabolites) were found to be statistically significantly altered in NK603 corn by the GM transformation process.
2. The GM transformation process was the major contributor to variation in the protein and metabolite profiles, rather than environmental factors such as the spraying of the Roundup weedkiller or the growing season.
3. Alteration in the protein profile revealed by the proteomics analysis was reflective of an imbalance in energy utilisation and oxidative stress (damage to cells and tissues by reactive oxygen).
4. Small molecule biochemical profile differences revealed by metabolomics mostly consisted of an increase in a class of compounds known as polyamines; the levels of potentially toxic putrescine and especially cadaverine were markedly increased in the GM NK603 corn.

Conclusions

1. GM NK603 corn and its corresponding non-GMO corn variety are not substantially equivalent.
2. The GM transformation process caused alterations in both protein and metabolite composition profiles in NK603 corn.
3. The non-substantial equivalence of NK603 corn with the corresponding non-GMO corn, and the increases in potential toxic compounds (polyamines; putrescine, cadaverine) in NK603 corn, indicate that a more thorough investigation of the safety of consuming products derived from this GMO food is warranted.

Relevance to health
The GM transformation process causes a general disturbance in the GMO plant. Whether the increased levels of cadaverine and putrescine found in the NK603 corn samples can account for the signs of potential negative health effects in rats fed on this corn needs to be further analysed in long-term feeding studies on laboratory animals, using methods that specifically and more accurately quantify the amounts of these polyamines and their effects.
State-of-the-art molecular profiling ‘omics’ methods could be used to deepen our understanding of the differences between GM plants and their non-GMO counterparts. This would enable scientists to improve the pre-commercial safety testing of GM plants by highlighting the presence of increased levels of known toxins (for example, certain polyamines found at increased levels in this study) or novel toxins and potentially allergenic substances.
The paper: FULL PAPER
Authors: Mesnage R, Agapito-Tenfen S, Vilperte V, Renney G, Ward M, Séralini GE, Nodari N, Antoniou MN.
An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process. Scientific Reports, 2016; 6:37855.

Read more: http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/12/19/new-study-shows-major-molecular-differences-between-gmo-and-non-gmo-corn/#.WFgqsPkrKM-

The First Sustainable Urban Agrihood in the U.S. Could Serve As A Model for Urban Development

Could fresh, healthy, affordable food be the future of urban neighborhood development?
In Detroit, Michigan, “the first sustainable urban agrihood” in the U.S. centers around an edible garden, with easily accessible, affordable produce offered to neighborhood residents and the community.
Each year, this urban farm provides fresh, free produce to 2,000 households within two square miles of the farm. They also supply food to local markets, restaurants, and food pantries.
The concept of agrihoods isn’t new —the Urban Land Institute estimated that about 200 agrihoods had been or were under construction across the U.S. — but this agrihood is unique because it’s the first truly urban agrihood. It plans to operate in a sustainable way, and is more accessible than most other agrihoods.
Agrihoods, also called agritopias or community-supported development, are an exciting concept because they create a remarkable improvement to the dominant food system.
They help tackle food insecurity and other community problems. They make it easy for people in low-income communities to get fresh, healthy food. And they give people a connection with the food they eat, the earth, and each other.

All about the first sustainable urban agrihood

The first sustainable urban agrihood, which recently debuted in Detroit, is the project of the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative — an all-volunteer nonprofit, which seeks to empower urban communities using sustainable agriculture.
The three-acre development has vacant land, along with occupied and abandoned homes centered around a two-acre urban garden, with more than 300 organic vegetable varieties, like lettuce, kale, and carrots, as well as a 200-tree fruit orchard, with apples, pears, plums, and cherries, a children’s sensory garden, and more.
The nonprofit is also working on other projects that go beyond farming, including:

• Turning a long-vacant building into a community resource center, which will offer educational programs, event and meeting space for the neighborhood, a nonprofit incubator, and two commercial kitchens
• Developing a healthy food cafe, and  
• Restoring a home into student intern housing and an off-grid shipping container.

Other projects to make the place more sustainable include:

• Installing solar panels,
• Converting a basement into a water harvesting cistern that will automatically irrigate the garden
• A public composting toilet, and
• A retention pond made from the foundation of a blighted home to supply the farm with water. 
•  
• Read more: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/food-politics/first-sustainable-urban-agrihood/?utm_campaign=frn16&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-automated&utm_content=2331&utm_term=existing-email-list&email=subzerohc%40yahoo.com&firstname=John&lastname=Zahos

After FDA found weedkiller in nearly 100% of honey products, it kept the information secret and refused to warn the public

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been doing its best to protect Monsanto and the entire GMO industry by dragging its feet and hiding information regarding glyphosate content in foods.

Glyphosate, the most widely-used herbicide on the planet and an essential component in GMO agricultural methods, has been the subject of increasing concern - particularly since the World Health Organization (WHO) classified it as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015.

For many years, the FDA avoided testing foods for glyphosate residue at all, parroting Monsanto's assurances that the herbicide poses no threat to human health, but under mounting public pressure it finally began conducting tests in February of this year.

Although the agency routinely tests foods for other pesticide residues, it has rather suspiciously left glyphosate off of the list until now.

From The Huffington Post:

"[FDA testing] came after many independent researchers started conducting their own testing and found glyphosate in an array of food products, including flour, cereal, and oatmeal. The government and Monsanto have maintained that any glyphosate residues in food would be minimal enough to be safe. But critics say without robust testing, glyphosate levels in food are not known. And they say that even trace amounts may be harmful because they are likely consumed so regularly in many foods."

And the results of the FDA's own tests are truly disturbing.

Glyphosate residue found even in "100% all-natural" honey

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal, for example, that glyphosate residue was found in all of the honey samples tested by the FDA - even honey marketed as being "100% all-natural." Some of the samples contained twice the European Union's allowable amount of glyphosate residue, and there is no allowable limit for glyphosate in honey produced in the U.S. - at least not yet.

This means that U.S. honey producers are technically in violation of the law - at least until tolerance levels are set by the FDA.

FDA denial and stalling tactics

But the FDA doesn't seem to be in any hurry to set any tolerance levels for honey. In fact, internal emails obtained through FOIA requests reveal that although honey producers are technically in violation, the agency doesn't consider it important because "it is not a safety issue."

In other words, the FDA is still dragging its feet to do anything, and is not currently planning to either set tolerance levels, or hold honey producers responsible for violating the law. In a statement, the FDA said: "there is no dietary risk concern from exposure to glyphosate residues in honey at this time."

And, of course, it's not really the fault of the honey producers to begin with, since glyphosate use is so widespread and because beekeepers have no real control over where the bees collect the pollen used in making honey.

The emails and other documents obtained show that the FDA is aware of the "glyphosate controversy," but seems both unwilling and unable to do much about it, other than keeping its test results secret and continuing its stalling tactics.

But slowly, the truth is leaking out regarding the dangers of glyphosate and the fact that both the FDA and the USDA have been corrupted through the lobbying efforts of Monsanto and the GMO industry as a whole.

For years, the Frankenfood industry has managed to keep its dark secrets with the help of a sold-out federal regulatory system, but the public is finally waking up to the deception and the dangers posed to the health of virtually every person on the planet.

Nothing short of a worldwide ban on GMOs and the use of glyphosate is an acceptable solution - we must collectively continue to fight the Frankenfood industry until it no longer exists in the United States or anywhere else.

Sources:

HuffingtonPost.com

USRTK.org

OrganicAuthority.com

How the Ancient Maya civilization cultivated organic crops using herbal medicine to combat pests

With such widespread use of pesticides on crops throughout the world, and the insistence of Big Agri and some farmers that its products are necessary for successful crop cultivation, one might start to wonder exactly how people managed to grow enough food to survive before this relatively modern poison took root.

Some clues can be found in the agricultural methods used by the Mayan people. Ancient Mayans viewed corn as a gift from the gods, and great care was taken in its cultivation. As a result, corn has been considered one of the most successful and effective self-sustaining cultivation systems on the planet for thousands of years.

The knowledge gleaned from millennia of experience could be used to help with growing organic crops today. The Yucatan Times reports that one of the keys to their success is their extensive knowledge of "photoperiods," which are the times of day when the plants are exposed to sunlight.

By taking into account the solar and lunar seasons, as well as these photoperiods, better blossoming can be achieved, thereby spurring better yields of vegetables and fruits.

Natural pesticides taken from herbal medicine

Moreover, the Mayan culture boasts a very thorough knowledge of herbal medicine. This is something that is not only applied to natural healing, but also to pest and fungus control on crops.

For example, the neem tree (Azadirachta Indica) has a lot of applications. This fast-growing tree can reach as tall as 20 meters, and its leaves can treat a host of diseases. Cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes are just a few of the illnesses it can help with. It also boasts antibacterial qualities, which means it can help with skin issues and can even help rid the body of impurities.

Its uses in crop cultivation are every bit as impressive. In fact, it has proven to fight one of the most dangerous threats to the cultivation of produce: the white fly.

Up to 90 percent effective

Neem is remarkably powerful when it comes to controlling insects, with one of its components, azadirachitin, believed to be as much as 90 percent effective in pest control. This chemical can be found not only in the leaves of the tree, but also in its wood and seeds. It does not cause instant death like chemical pesticides. Instead, it repels insects and serves as an anti-feedant, essentially causing the insects to prefer starving to death over eating the plant that has been treated with neem. If they eat it anyway, the neem will have a contraceptive effect, thereby interrupting their life cycle by ensuring they do not lay eggs.

Plants that have been treated with neem are safe for beneficial insects like butterflies and bees, and insects must actually have fed on the plant tissues in order to be affected.

Another benefit of using neem is that it is biodegradable, which means it will break down quickly and easily. Unlike chemical pesticides, it does not harm birds, mammals or earthworms.

Neem's insecticide action can replace the use of pesticides and chemicals, ensuring that the produce is not contaminated. The Mayans combine this with their mastery of soil preparation and composting to yield impressive results.

Mayan researcher and culture expert Caamal Itza believes that this traditional knowledge should be disseminated and preserved in order to help promote food production methods that are kinder to the environment.

As the demand for organic produce continues to rise, now is an excellent time for some of these methods to garner a closer look. After all, why would anyone in their right mind want to buy produce that was doused in chemicals known to cause cancer, when they could choose options that were grown with natural pesticides?

Sources include:

TheYucatanTimes.com

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054596_natural_pesticides_Mayans_agriculture.html

Many Surprising Foods Found to Contain Monsanto's Deadly Poison

• Ten out of 24 breakfast foods tested were found to contain detectable levels of glyphosate
• This included oatmeal, bagels, coffee creamer, organic bread and even organic, cage-free, antibiotic-free eggs
• The results suggest Americans are consuming glyphosate, a probable carcinogen, daily
•  
• Read more: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/05/03/glyphosate-food.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20160503Z1&et_cid=DM104614&et_rid=1468133361 

Quaker instant oatmeal and Silk non-GMO soy creamer found contaminated with alarming levels of glyphosate weed killer... and they're not even GMO!

According to glyphosate laboratory testing conducted at Microbe Inotech Laboratories, Inc., in St. Louis, the Quaker Instant Oatmeal (Strawberries and Cream) sample tested at the lab contains an astonishing 1,327.1 ppb (parts per billion) of glyphosate weed killer.

The test results, achieved via the ELISA methodology (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay), are astonishing for two reasons:

1) They are extremely high, far surpassing the levels of glyphosate that have so far been detected in other foods.

2) Oats are not GMO! While glyphosate might be expected at some concentrations in GM soy and other herbicide resistant crops, very few people are aware that glyphosate is being routinely sprayed on wheat, barley and oat crops as a powerful desiccant, right before harvest.

Organic brands were far cleaner

By comparison, Nature's Path Organic Instant Oatmeal -- produced by a cereal company that meticulously avoids GMOs and toxic agricultural chemicals -- showed a final test result of "less than 75 ppb" which could mean essentially zero. For grains, anything below 75 ppb is below the LoD (Limit of Detection) for the ELISA methodology.

The testing was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA), which tested 24 popular breakfast foods and found glyphosate concentrations in 11 of those samples. ANH-USA has also released a video on the subject, entitled "Are You Eating Glyphosate For Breakfast?" (The answer is probably YES...)

"We decided to do this testing to see just how ubiquitous this toxin has become in our environment. We expected that trace amounts would show up in foods containing large amounts of corn and soy," explained Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director of ANH-USA. "However, we were unprepared for just how invasive this poison has been to our entire food chain."

See the brand names of the products that tested positive for glyphosate

ANH-USA results, found at this link, use generic descriptors of food samples, without their brand names. But Natural News can now exclusively report the brand names behind these foods which tested positive for glyphosate, according to lab results provided to Natural News:

• 1327.1 ppb - Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Strawberries and Cream
• 491.9 ppb - Thomas's Whole Wheat Bagels
• 151.5 ppb - Rudio Multibagels
• 403.0 ppb - Pepperidge Farm Whole GrainBread, 100% Whole Wheat
• 136.4 ppb - Dave's Killer Whole Wheat Bread
• 34.4 ppb - OreIda Hash Brown Potatoes
• 24.1 ppb - Russet Potato
• 260.6 ppb - Cream of Wheat Hot Cereal Whole Grain
• 104 ppb - 365 Coffee Creamer
• 86 ppb - Original Silk Soy Creamer Non GMO

In addition, results of over 100 ppb were also found in eggs, but extracting glyphosate from eggs hasn't yet been validated with the ELISA method, so we're not including those results here.

Silk, Whole Foods' 365, Pepperidge Farm, Thomas's and other brands all named

Many consumers will be extremely surprised -- perhaps "shocked" is a better descriptor -- to learn that "Silk" brand non-GMO soy creamer still contains glyphosate, according to these test results.

Whole Foods' 365 brand was also found to contain a significant concentration of glyphosate, as was Cream of Wheat hot cereal, which is mostly made of wheat (which is also non-GMO).

Thus, the disturbing upshot of these tests is that even non-GMO crops can be saturated with glyphosate weed killer chemicals. This includes oats, wheat, barley and other crops.

Glyphosate is currently listed as "probably carcinogen" by the IARC -- meaning these health experts believe there is credible evidence that it causes cancer. Click here for the IARC's report and conclusions.

Because of its toxicity, glyphosate is being aggressively outlawed by various countries around the world such as The Netherlands and Sri Lanka, to name a few.

The European Union has publicly stated that glyphosate herbicide formulates are "genotoxic," while Monsanto, which sells glyphosate branded as "Roundup," is running an entire department of propagandists and professional muckrakers whose job is to discredit anyone who disagree with industry propaganda.

Monsanto propagandists include the globally reviled Jon Entine, a paid disinfo shill and industry propagandist whose job is to spread lies and disinformation about GMOs in much the same way Big Tobacco once declared cigarettes didn't cause cancer (and weren't addictive, either). Natural News exposed Jon Entine as a violent sociopath, after which he was fired from Forbes.com, which also functions as an industry propaganda front group for Big Biotech and Big Pharma.

Campbell's recently announced it would label GMOs in its foods. Mars, Inc. soon followed, as did, reluctantly, General Mills.

Learn more about glyphosate news at Glyphosate.news, a Natural News content property.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.anh-usa.org/glyphosate-for-breakf...

http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/...

http://www.naturalnews.com/049830_Netherland...

http://www.naturalnews.com/050009_sri_lanka_...

http://www.naturalnews.com/052065_glyphosate...

http://www.naturalnews.com/049637_Monsanto_p...

http://www.naturalnews.com/047665_Jon_Entine...

http://www.naturalnews.com/053381_General_Mi...

http://glyphosate.news

Syngenta asks EPA to raise insecticide limits while scientists develop robots to replace bees decimated by chemicals

Around 95 percent of corn and 70 percent of soy grown in the US and Canada is cloaked in either clothianidin or thiamethoxan. Both chemicals are from a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids. Similar to nicotine, neonicotinoids bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the cells of the central nervous system. In insects, this triggers a suppressive and deadly response at the cellular level.

In the rush to protect crops from insect damage, scientists have neglected one important detail. The neonicotinoid insecticides can be absorbed into the plant. As the plant matures, the chemical can be transported throughout the plant, most importantly, into the pollen. Over time, pollinators like honeybees can be weakened and compromised. Massive bee die-offs have been occurring around the world where neonicotinoids are heavily used. Without pollinators, all sorts of plants suffer -- especially key vegetable crops and wild herbs. Honeybees pollinate about one-third of the world's food. Without them, $15 billion in agricultural production would be lost each year.

Tiffany Stacker of E&E reported, "Scientists say neonicotinoids can suppress bees' immune systems, making them more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria. The Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to phase out neonicotinoids on wildlife refuges nationwide starting in January 2016."

The insecticides are so catastrophic that the European Union banned the use of them two years ago after validating a study linking neonicotinoids to honeybee colony collapse disorder.

Syngenta wants to raise insecticide limit from 0.1 ppm to 4.9 ppm - a staggering increase

Disdainfully, chemical giant Syngenta has recently asked the US EPA to lift current restrictions on their insecticides, asking regulators to increase the allowable level of thiamethoxan to 4.9 parts per million. The EPA's current allowable level is 0.1 ppm. Syngenta is basically asking the federal government to approve more than 40 times the amount of insecticide in the environment! This type of increase would speed up bee die-offs tragically, probably wiping 90 percent or more of their population from affected ecosystems within the next decade.

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the biotechnology-chemical industry. As always, they create a problem and then invent a solution, while the natural world is destroyed in the process. Their solution for having no bees on the planet is simple: develop robot bees.

Scientists develop robot bees to replace bees destroyed by insecticides

At Harvard University, the RoboBee is already up and flying, flapping its wings at 120 times per second. Engineering professor Robert Wood introduced the new robotic bee just a year ago and envisions an entire team of them pollinating fields in the next decade. The bees wouldn't be able to produce raw medicinal honey or propolis. They would simply just pick up and lay down pollen.

"RoboBees will work best when employed as swarms of thousands of individuals, coordinating their actions without relying on a single leader," Wood and his colleagues wrote in Scientific American. "The hive must be resilient enough so that the group can complete its objectives even if many bees fail."

The project is a breakthrough for micro aerial vehicles, but the tiny bots are still unable to communicate with one another or fly on their own. The current model has to be driven by a person. The challenge that the developers now face is fitting flight muscles, sensors and a battery on the robot bee without it weighing more than a gram.

Inventing profitable problem-solution monopoly while destroying Earth

While the RoboBee "solution" could potentially help recover lost pollinators in the natural world, it would overshadow the root problem of an agricultural system dependent on chemicals that are quietly destroying the world and bringing down the entire food system.

This is exactly how herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops work too. Engineered herbicide-resistant crops create the need for more herbicides, thus creating more need for profitable, patented seeds.

What's really happening at this moment in history is corporations are destroying the natural world for profit and forcing people to be dependent on the technological "fix." In this way, science is not progressing mankind but instead stripping him of his humanity and destroying his sacred connection to Earth.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com

http://www.businessinsider.com

http://www.topsecretwriters.com

http://www.scienceworldreport.com

http://www.beyondpesticides.org

http://www.cell.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053170_neonicotinoid_insecticides_deadly_pesticides_Syngenta.html#ixzz42228e7s4

How to make pemmican - a nutritious superfood for survival that lasts decades

It may come as a surprise to learn that the most nutritionally-complete food on the planet is not only easy to make at home, but can also be stored unrefrigerated for many years without spoiling.

Dubbed the "original MRE," or, "Meal, Ready-to-Eat," pemmican is a survival superfood that was developed by Native Americans many centuries ago. It contains everything the body needs to sustain itself in a healthy fashion for an extended period of time.

Pemmican consists primarily of powdered dried meat mixed in equal amounts with rendered animal fat. The early Americans used meats such as buffalo and elk; today, pemmican is typically made with beef. We suggest using grass-fed meat, as animals fed in this manner are raised significantly more humanely.

The Native Americans were also known to mix in a small amount of dried berries (around five percent -- by weight -- of the total ingredients).

Pemmican: Enjoyed by early settlers, still provides health benefits today

The Pemmican Manual, by Lex Rooker, contains a wealth of information on the subject, from the history of its use by early settlers to recipes for making pemmican at home.

"When pemmican was discovered by our early Frontiersmen (explorers, hunters, trappers, and the like) it became a highly sought after commodity. The Hudson Bay Company purchased tons of pemmican from the native tribes each year to satisfy the demand," Rooker explains. "The basic unit of trade was an animal hide filled with pemmican, sealed with pure rendered fat on the seams, and weighed about 90 pounds. As long as it was kept away from moisture, heat, and direct sunlight, it would last for many years with no refrigeration or other method of preservation."

Those frontiersmen knew a good thing when they saw it. Pemmican was ideal for travel and for stockpiling a source of highly-concentrated nutritious food during lean or cold periods.

The same considerations apply today. For surviving a SHTF scenario, you'll need portable, high-energy rations that can be stored indefinitely.

There are a few variations on the theme, but most recipes for pemmican follow the same basic methods.

How to make pemmican at home

First, you'll need to dehydrate your meat (and berries, if you want to add them. Keep in mind berries are prone to spoilage and may shorten the shelf life of the pemmican; it may be worth replacing them with another healthy item such as cinnamon). Use a food dehydrator or an oven at its lowest setting to slowly dry out these ingredients.

Rooker warns of being careful not to overheat the meat, saying that lean meat should be dehydrated below 120 degrees Fahrenheit, ideally staying between 100 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures that are too high will cook the meat too much and take away from the nutritional value.

Once you've dried the meat, grind it into a powder and add in the dried berries, if desired.

Next, you must render the fat. You can use tallow (rendered from beef or mutton) or lard (from pork). When doing this on a stovetop, simply heat the ground fat by simmering and stirring occasionally. Then strain the liquid that ultimately forms into a mason jar using a cheesecloth or coffee filter.

Once the fat is rendered and strained, it can be mixed with the dried meat and shaped into balls or set into a mold. The trick is to not use too much fat or the pemmican may eventually turn rancid; add just enough to thoroughly moisten the mixture and bind everything together.

Why not try some variations on the theme?

Honey, which yields a similar shelf life, can be used in place of animal fat. Adding some spices, such as cumin with black pepper, may also be tasty addition to this recipe.

Long-lasting nutrition for active people, SHTF situations

As Rooker notes, pemmican is the perfect food for someone on the move. It's also ideal for possible SHTF scenarios.

"Ten pounds of pemmican will easily sustain a backpacker for a full week providing 1 ¹/₂ pounds of pemmican per day which would supply 4,400 calories -- enough to support strenuous climbing at high altitude and in cold weather." He adds, "The same 10 pounds of pemmican would supply food for two full weeks of leisure camping activities at ³/₄ pound per day providing 2,200 calories."

Sources for this article include:
http://tacticalintelligence.net
http://www.traditionaltx.us [PDF]
http://www.askaprepper.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052403_pemmican_superfood_recipe_nutritious_survival_food.html#ixzz3vEJxLYTY