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

Comprehensive study confirms the cardioprotective effects of blueberries and strawberries

If you’re concerned about a heart attack, there are lots of steps you might take to reduce your risk. Perhaps you’re already exercising and eating a healthy diet, but you’d like to give your efforts that extra edge. Before your doctor convinces you to start taking a long-term regimen of risky medications that may or may not actually be effective, why not turn to nature for an alternative that is as delicious as it is powerful?
A study carried out by researchers from Harvard Medical School revealed just how much two particular berries can help reduce a person’s risk of heart attack: strawberries and blueberries. They looked at health data from more than 93,000 women aged 25 to 42 who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, which included information about their diet and health over the course of 18 years.
They discovered that the women who ate the fewest blueberries and strawberries had the highest risk of having a heart attack, while those who ate the most of these berries were 34 percent less likely to have a heart attack. Consuming the berries regularly brought about the positive health benefits, and those with the healthiest hearts tended to eat at least three cups per week of the two fruits combined, on average.
These benefits came about regardless of other risk factors like alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, family history of heart attack, age and high blood pressure, which means you can increase your risk even further by combining a boost in your berry intake with other healthy changes.
Studies in mice have also shown blueberries’ value in heart health. Researchers from the University of Maine found that mice who were fed a blueberry-rich diet had significant improvements in how easily their veins expanded and constricted, which had a blood pressure-lowering effect.

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.

How do berries help your heart?

It is believed that their power comes from their high content of the flavonoids known as anthocyanins. These antioxidants can lower blood pressure and increase the flexibility of blood vessels.
Should you run out and buy supplements that contain these flavonoids? The scientists say no; they work best when you get them from the whole foods themselves, and organic varieties will give you more nutrients without the pesticide risk.
This is excellent news for people with heart concerns because berries are so easy to incorporate into your diet. Of course, a commercial blueberry pie isn’t going to do your heart any favors with its trans fats and high sugar content, but thankfully berries work so well with a number of healthy dishes.
For example, you can get your daily dose at breakfast by mixing some berries into your organic oatmeal or yogurt – be sure you sweeten it yourself with a bit of organic honey rather than buying the sugar-laden prepared varieties. You can work berries into your lunch or dinner by adding them to a salad; they pair extremely well with leafy greens like spinach, and you can make your own quick dressing with balsamic vinegar and extra-virgin olive oil to enhance their flavor and consume some heart-healthy fats. If you’re not inclined to cook, you can munch on a handful of berries as an easy snack at any hour.

Benefits of berry consumption extend beyond your heart

There are plenty of benefits to be gained by eating more berries, and they extend far beyond your heart. For example, regular blueberry consumption has been linked to a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, macular degeneration, and urinary tract infections, while strawberries have been found to support the brain, eyes, muscles, joints, and immune system.
Read Fruits.news for more coverage of the healing properties of raw fruits.
Sources include:
NaturalHealth365.com
NaturalNews.com

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-07-08-comprehensive-study-confirms-the-cardioprotective-effects-of-blueberries-and-strawberries.html

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

USDA Sickos Caught Killing Hundreds of Kittens Via Incineration

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/congressman-calls-for-investigation-for-reported-kitten-killing-at-usda-test-lab-in-beltsville

Large-scale study proves that cell tower radiation causes cancer… where is the apology from the media for years of LYING about it?

The concept of cell tower radiation causing cancer used to be tinfoil hat territory – or at least that’s what those with vested interests in the technology wanted people to think. Now, however, the body of scientific evidence indicating that cell tower radiation can cause cancer is growing too big to ignore.
The world’s biggest animal study of cell tower radiation, which was carried out by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, has revealed the dangers of exposure to environmental levels of cell tower radiation. In the study, researchers exposed 2,448 rats to 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation in amounts that mimicked those that cell tower antennas give off for 19 hours a day. They found that the female rats had a higher chance of developing malignant brain tumors, while all rats had a higher chance of precancerous conditions and Schwann cell hyperplasia.
This study went the extra mile, allowing the rats to live until their natural death. Four fifths of human cancers occur after people have turned 60, so following the animals over an extended period enabled them to catch late-developing tumors.
The researchers say that their findings are enough to call on the International Agency for Research on Cancer to take another look at the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation on humans.
For decades, the corporate-influenced media has characterized any links between cell towers and cancer as being a “conspiracy theory.” Yet the theory now appears to be scientific fact. “Where is the apology from the lying media on all this,” asked Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, publisher of Science.news and author of Food Forensics. “Now mainstream science is finally catching up to the warnings we published over a decade ago, once again demonstrating that we were years ahead of the nearly illiterate so-called journalists who cover science topics for the fake news media. For years, they insisted there was no link between cell tower radiation and brain tumors, effectively putting billions of people at risk and costing an unknown number of innocent lives,” Adams explained. “Now that the truth comes out, will they retract their false accusations against those of us who were accurately warning the public of the health risks associated with cell towers? Of course not. They are fake news. Only independent media reports real news in the interests of the public.”

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.

It’s worth noting that this study used far lower amounts of radiation than those used by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. That study also found the cancer Schwannoma of the heart in male rats, but it faced some criticism for the high doses used. In the Ramazzini study, however, the exposures were even lower than the “safe” limits set out by the FCC, which means people can be exposed to such levels of radiation legally.

Pregnant women and children urged to be cautious

Pregnant women and children need to be particularly careful about their exposure, according to the study, as the researchers discovered that animals exposed to radio frequency radiation had significantly lower litter weights. Other experts concur, pointing out that the current standards were not reached with this subgroup in mind.
In fact, the current FCC limits were set 20 years ago, when most people didn’t have cell phones and the average call was just six minutes. These days, we all know that cell phone use has risen dramatically, and it’s surprising these limits have not yet been reassessed.
The executive director of Environmental Health Trust, Theodora Scarato, said that several nations already have stricter regulations than the U.S. when it comes to cell tower radiation – namely Russia, Italy, India and China. The group is joining public health experts from places like Israel, France and Belgium in asking governments and the private sector to carry out measures to make cell technology usage safer. For example, they’d like to see campaigns educating the public on how to use these devices safely and the potential dangers of exposure. Meanwhile, technology companies can look into changing software and hardware in ways that reduce people’s exposure.
Late last year, the California Department of Public Health released new guidelines on how people can reduce their exposure to the radio frequency energy released when cell phones send and receive signals from cell phone towers. For example, they suggest that people avoid keeping their phone in their pocket or near their bed at night.
In addition, the California Department of Public Health’s director, Dr. Karen Smith, said that parents should restrict their children’s cell phone use as children’s brains continue to develop throughout their teenage years and can be affected more by cell phone usage.
Read EMF.news for more coverage of electromagnetic radiation and its health implications.
Sources for this article include:
GreenMedInfo.com
NaturalNews.com
IBTimes.com

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-06-large-scale-study-proves-that-cell-tower-radiation-causes-cancer.html

The latest left-wing ecological insanity: Clear-cutting forests to burn the trees for “green” energy

In the interest of stopping “global warming,” government officials in the United Kingdom have partnered with companies and governments in the state of Virginia to hack down large swaths of southern hardwood forest in order to create “biomass” energy for use across the pond.
Since continuing to burn native fossil fuels like coal won’t help the U.K. achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the country has decided to clear-cut entire forests here in the United States and burn all the wood that’s collected to generate electricity – and it’s calling this mass destruction of trees “green” energy.
This partnership between Great Britain and Virginia is costing U.K. taxpayers the equivalent of nearly $1 billion annually, as their electricity bills are padded with extra “green” fees that supposedly help to cover the cost of mowing down America’s hardwood forests and turning them into fuel for homes and businesses.
Because trees are technically renewable, the whole thing is considered to be beneficial in helping to curb the threat of “climate change,” despite the fact that burning wood creates a tremendous amount of heat and ash pollution. But tacking “green” onto the endeavor is apparently enough to pacify the climate fanatics who support the move, and believe that it will help to reduce the U.K.’s “carbon footprint.”
“This is yet another shocking example of the mindless, destructive, anti-science stupidity of the climate change alarmists,” warned scientist Mike Adams, publisher of Climate.news and founder of a globally-recognized food and environmental science lab (CWClabs.com). “Industries are literally murdering living forests in the name of greening the planet,” Adams said. “The very same people who used to be tree huggers are now tree murderers, and none of them appear to recognize any contradiction in their own stupidity.”

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.

According to The Ecologist, the felled trees in Virginia’s hardwood forests are being turned into millions of tons of small wood pellets that are regularly shipped over to the U.K.’s largest power station, Drax, which is located in North Yorkshire. A U.S.-based company known as Enviva first processes the logs into these pellets, which are then hauled across the Atlantic and burned as fuel at the Drax plant.
It’s a laborious process that British authorities claim will help to cut the nation’s carbon emission by 57 percent by the year 2030. Drax plans to completely phase out the burning of local coal, instead bringing in the wood pellets from overseas, which is supposedly “greener.”
According to officials at Drax, the burning of wood pellets rather than coal will supposedly help reduce carbon emissions at the plant alone by as much as 80 percent. This figure comes from laboratory experiments conducted at the University of Nottingham that supposedly show major carbon reductions.

Truth bomb: Burning wood actually produces more carbon than burning coal

But is this actually true? Not exactly. As explained by The Ecologist, to generate the same amount of energy from wood pellets as from coal ends up producing about eight percent more carbon – meaning wood-burning is actually more polluting than coal-burning.
But because European law regards wood biomass as “carbon neutral,” this isn’t even considered – not to mention the mass destruction of hardwood forests that’s left in its wake. And Drax doesn’t even have to report the amount of carbon emissions coming from its chimneys due to this “carbon neutral” designation.
If Drax was, in fact, required to monitor carbon emissions, it would reveal that biomass is hardly “green” in the way that some people think it is. At least 11.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) was generated at Drax just last year alone – and if this was all biomass energy, it would be an additional eight percent more CO2.
And while the replanting of trees can help to sequester some of this carbon, trees take several decades to regrow. This implies that creating biomass is hardly a “green” endeavor, and is actually causing widespread destruction to, in this case, America’s precious natural resources.
“Britain may be on track to eliminating the use of coal but they are not on track to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions,” The Ecologist explains. “We’re not going to meet our one and a half or two-degree targets that all governments, including the British government, agreed to in Paris.”
“Burning more wood makes it absolutely impossible to meet that target. We now know that if we overshoot that the consequences last for 100s to a thousand or more years. So there’s no off switch, there’s no reverse gear.”
Sources for this article include:
TheEcologist.org
NaturalNews.com

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-06-the-latest-left-wing-ecological-insanity-clear-cutting-forests-to-burn-the-trees-for-green-energy.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