Bayer's Modified Soil Microbes could Trigger a Genetically Engineered Doomsday

These genetic scientists have egregiously abused science by already contaminating the gene pool of every living thing on this planet.

Collectively, they have been plotting the takeover of all genetic material since 1992.

The only way to stop them is to take away their keycards and their containment suits, immediately escort them out of their laboratories, permanently ban them from any other scientific research for life, and then raze the buildings to the ground.

Source

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

-Bayer's modified soil microbes could trigger a genetically engineered doomsday for agriculture

-If you don't like the toxic pollution from industrial agriculture's synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, Bayer and its partner Ginkgo Bioworks have a solution

-They say they're going to swap out some of the old fossil-fuel-based agrochemicals for genetically engineered microbes

-The uncontrolled spread of genetically engineered microbes could contaminate soil on such a vast scale that it could be the end of farming!

Genetic Scientists on track to create a Genetically Engineered Doomsday...

Bayer's modified soil microbes could trigger a genetically engineered doomsday for agriculture.

Is that what Bayer wants?

If you don't like the toxic pollution from industrial agriculture's synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, Bayer and its partner Ginkgo Bioworks have a solution for you.

They say they're going to swap out some of the old fossil-fuel-based agrochemicals for genetically engineered microbes...

We're no fan of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, but let's not jump from the frying pan into the fire...!

The uncontrolled spread of genetically engineered microbes could contaminate soil on such a vast scale that it could be the end of farming!

You don't have to take our word for it, just read Ginkgo's own report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

It's like a sci-fi writer's brainstorm of plots for a disaster movie:

"The release of genetically modified organisms or materials, whether inadvertent or purposeful, into uncontrolled environments could have unintended consequences...

The genetically engineered organisms and materials that we develop may have significantly altered characteristics compared to those found in the wild, and the full effects of deployment or release of our genetically engineered organisms and materials into uncontrolled environments may be unknown.

In particular, such deployment or release, including an unauthorized release, could impact the environment or community generally or the health and safety of our employees, our customers' employees, and the consumers of our customers' products.

In addition, if a high profile biosecurity breach or unauthorized release of a biological agent occurs within our industry, our customers and potential customers may lose trust in the security of the laboratory environments in which we produce genetically modified organisms and materials, even if we are not directly affected.

Any adverse effect resulting from such a release, by us or others, could have a material adverse effect on the public acceptance of products from engineered cells and our business and financial condition...

We could synthesize DNA sequences or engage in other activity that contravenes biosecurity requirements, or regulatory authorities could promulgate more far-reaching biosecurity requirements that our standard business practices cannot accommodate, which could give rise to substantial legal liability, impede our business, and damage our reputation.

The Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP), involves rules administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that regulate possession, use, and transfer of 'biological select agents and toxins' [a euphemism for bioweapons...] that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal, or plant health or to animal or plant products...

[W]e could err in our observance of compliance program requirements in a manner that leaves us in noncompliance with FSAP or other biosecurity rules...

Third parties may use our engineered cells materials, and organisms and accompanying production processes in ways that could damage our reputation.

...[W]hile we have established a biosecurity program... to ensure that third parties do not obtain our engineered cells or other biomaterials for malevolent purposes, we cannot guarantee that these preventative measures will eliminate or reduce the risk of the domestic and global opportunities for the misuse or negligent use of our engineered cells materials, and organisms and production processes..."

Ginkgo's SEC filing makes clear how unleashing Frankenmicrobes into the environment might wreak havoc, but if that doesn't do it for you, this chilling true story from Dr. Elaine Ingham will.

Watch a short film about it from Protect Nature Now and read the original 1999 scientific publication here.

https://youtu.be/yMVcEEhQXxk?feature=shared

Source

When Dr. Ingham was an associate professor at Oregon State University, she led a study on a genetically engineered soil bacterium that changed the course of her career - and threatened all plant life on Earth.

In the 1990s, a European biotech company (I haven't been able to figure out which one, but reports identify it as German, like Bayer and BASF), was preparing to commercialize a genetically engineered soil bacterium called Klebsiella planticola.

In its natural form, K. planticola helps decompose plant matter.

The genetically modified version was intended to convert plant waste to alcohol, which could be used for fertilizer or fuel.

But when Dr. Ingham and her team decided to run their own test on the alcohol-producing bacterium, they discovered that it not only killed all of the plants tested, but had the potential to kill all terrestrial plants.

Her findings ultimately prevented the genetically altered bacterium from being commercialized, but also brought about the end of her affiliation with Oregon State University, an institution funded by the biotech industry...

That Dr. Ingham lost her university job when she saved the world from a GMO microbe that could have killed every plant on the planet tells us everything about the intentions of biotech behemoths like Bayer.

According to Friends of the Earth:

"Bayer has amassed a collection of at least 125,000 wild microbial strains and in 2019 created an umbrella branch for related products called Biologicals by Bayer.

The company has rapidly expanded their activities in this area via acquisitions.

Between 2012 and 2014, Bayer acquired three biologicals companies and in 2022 established a strategic partnership with Ginkgo Bioworks, a startup company which has received $15 billion in investment to develop a platform to automate the genetic engineering of thousands of microbes at once.

Bayer also acquires and markets individual microbial products from other companies.

The most prominent microbial products released by the company to date are bacteria-based fungicides as well as some plant growth promoting products."

Bayer has made a pledge to,

"reduce the environmental impact of crop protection by 30 percent without sacrificing yield and the health of the harvest" by 2030.

The truth is, Bayer has no plans to reduce its pesticide sales.

What it's looking to do is create additional products to stack on top of the ones it already sells.

Bayer is working with the Bill Gates-backed Pivot Bio on genetically engineered nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The promise is that it could cut synthetic fertilizer use, but there's no evidence of that.

Pivot isn't letting independent scientists evaluate their claims.

It's the same story with Poncho/VOTiVO, a hybrid chemical/biological insecticide product originally created by Bayer and now sold by BASF.

Instead of marketing the genetically engineered Bt bacteria VOTiVO as an alternative to the neonicotinoid insecticide Poncho (which kills bees), they're sold together - and only together - as a single product.

This way, the companies can up-sell farmers, and if the product doesn't work as advertised no one knows what's to blame.

The soil microbe scam is just another in the long line of empty promises about the potential benefits of genetic engineering for food and farming:

We've been fed so many lies about GMOs.

GMOs were going to "feed the world," but Monsanto (which merged with Bayer and retired its infamous name in 2018) never came up with any genetically engineered traits that increased yields.

They just bought up control of all the high-yielding varieties - that had all been conventionally bred.

GMOs were going to "reduce pesticide use," but there's no other reason to genetically engineer crops to be impervious to pesticides other than to sell more pesticides - and that's exactly what Monsanto did.

GMOs were "safe," but they were never safety-tested.

Monsanto avoided Food & Drug Administration regulation by getting GMOs declared Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).

GMOs were going to "coexist" with organic, but Monsanto made sure the burden was on non-GMO farmers to protect themselves from genetic pollution and pesticide drift.

When farmers' seeds got contaminated, Monsanto successfully claimed the farmers were stealing its GMO traits.

GMOs were going to make farming more resilient to climate change, but Monsanto's "drought tolerant" corn was a failure.

Bayer claims to care about pollinators, but it invented the pollinator-poisoning neonicotinoid insecticides that are killing the birds and the bees - and it refuses to stop selling them!

Bayer claims to care about farmers, but 11,000 rice farmers had to sue it when Bayer contaminated rice seeds with unapproved GMO traits, causing $1.2 billion in losses.

Bayer eventually paid $750 million. Farmers still can't grow that rice.

According to a Greenpeace investigation, the contamination - which involved three different GMO varieties - impacted rice seeds and 30 percent of rice supplies, including rice exported to 30 countries.

The contamination was discovered in 2006, but the rice hadn't been grown since 2001. The unapproved GMO rice was still being found in Mexican supermarkets in 2010...!

It's hard to believe that any of this is an accident, especially considering Bayer's history.

Bayer used prisoners in experiments at Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Auschwitz was the industrial production headquarters of Bayer and its parent company I.G. Farben during World War II, built with slave labor purchased from the Nazis.

Bayer was the I.G. Farben division that marketed Zyklon B.

During the war, almost all sales were to the Nazis for their "gas chamber" genocide.

Monsanto conducted human radiation experiments on unwitting, uninformed U.S. citizens - from its own employees to the residents of whole housing projects - while working as a Pentagon contractor.

It ran the chemistry side of the Manhattan Project and then maintained the U.S. nuclear weapons production facility known as Mound Laboratories.

When the war was over, the two companies jumped straight from the Holocaust, and building atomic bombs to kill Japanese civilians, right into a merger they called MoBay.

That collaboration resulted in the Agent Orange toxin the U.S. used in the Vietnam War.

Bayer is evil...!

From Zyklon B to Agent Orange to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup to pollinator-poisoning neonics, the company has done nothing but try to kill us and destroy our capacity to feed ourselves...!

Why...?

They plan to make money off the transition from agriculture as we know it to a world where lab-grown and synthetic "proteins" are the new processed foods.

We must stop its latest plot to destroy our food system...

by Alexis Baden-Mayer
January 16, 2024 (from Mercola Website)

Bayer + Monsanto = A Match Made in Hell

It is hardly surprising that the first thing Bayer did after completing their takeover of Monsanto earlier this month was to announce that they were dropping the Monsanto name, merging the two companies' agrichemical divisions under the Bayer CropScience name.

After all, as everyone knows, Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations in the world. But Bayer itself has an equally atrocious history of death and destruction...

Together they are a match made in hell...

June 23, 2018

from CorbettReport Website

Bayer + Monsanto = A Match Made in Hell

https://youtu.be/khfdjPbecwM

READ MORE

Industry "Weapons" for Earth's Depopulation

Monsanto - A Multinational Factory of Death

MONSATAN

MONSATAN

India is steeped in synthesised controversy, created by Monsanto on the first GM crop supposedly-approved for commercialisation in India. Engaged in litigation on many fronts, Monsanto is trying to subvert our Patent Law, our Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, our Essential Commodities Act , our Anti Monopoly Act (Competition Act). It is behaving as if there is no Parliament, no Democracy, no Sovereign Laws in India to which it is subject. Or, it simply does not have any regard for them.

In another theatre, Monsanto and Bayer are merging. They were one as MOBAY (MonsantoBayer), part of the Poison Cartel of IG Farben. Controlling stakes of both Corporations lies with the same private equity firms.


I.G. Farben board member Fritz ter Meer (fifth from right) explains to Adolf Hitler the significance of synthetic rubber, Berlin, 1936, © National Archives, Washington, DC (image right)

The expertise of these companies are those of war. IG Farben – Hitler’s economic power and pre-war Germany’s highest foreign exchange earner – was also a foreign intelligence operation. Herman Shmitz was President of IG Farben, Shmitz’s nephew Max Ilgner was a Director of IG Farben, while Max’s brother Rudolph Ilgner handled the New York arm of the ‘VOWI‘ network as vice president of CHEMNYCO.

Paul Warburg – brother of Max Warburg (Board of Directors, Farben Aufsichsrat) – was one of the founding members of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. He was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Max Warburg and Hermann Schmitz played a central role in the Farben empire. Other “guiding hands” of Farben Vorstand included Carl Bosch, Fritz ter Meer, Kurt Oppenheim and George von Schnitzler. Every one of them were adjudged ‘War Criminals’ after World War II, except Paul Warburg.

Monsanto and Bayer have a long history. They made explosives and lethally poisonous gases using shared technologies and sold them to both sides in both World Wars. The same war chemicals were bought by the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers, from the same manufacturers, with money borrowed from the same federated reserve bank.



MOBAY (MonsantoBayer) supplied ingredients for Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. 20 million gallons of MOBAY defoliants and herbicides were sprayed over South Vietnam. Children are still being born with birth defects, adults have chronic illnesses and cancers, due to their exposure to MOBAY’s chemicals. Monsanto and Bayer’s cross-licensed Agent Orange Resistance has also been cross-developed for decades.

Wars were fought, lives were lost, countries carved into holy lands – with artificial boundaries that suit colonisation and resource grab – while Bayer and Monsanto sold chemicals as bombs and poisons and their brothers provided the loans to buy those bombs.

More recently, according to Monsanto’s website Bayer CropScience AG and Monsanto Co. have “entered into a series of long-term business and licensing agreements related to key enabling agricultural technologies”. This gives Monsanto and Bayer free access to each other’s herbicide and the paired herbicide resistance technology. Through cross licensing agreements like these, mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become the IG Farben of today, with Monsanto in the cockpit.

The Global Chemical and GMO industry – Bayer, Dow Agro, DuPont Pioneer, Mahyco, Monsanto and Syngenta – have come together to form Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII) to try and become bigger bullies in this assault on India’s farmers, the environment , and democratically framed laws that protect the public and national interest.This is in addition to the lolly-group ABLE, the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises, which tried to challenge India’s Seed Price Control order issued under the Essential commodities Act, in the High Court of Karnataka. The case was dismissed.

The new Group is not “seed Industry”, they produce no seeds. And they try to stretch patents on chemicals to claim ownership on seed, even in countries where patents on seeds and plants are not allowed by law. This is the case in India, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and many other countries.

All the Monsanto cases in India are related to Monsanto un-scientifically, illegally and illegitimately claiming patents on seed, in contempt of India’s laws, and trying to collect royalties from the Indian seed industry and Indian farmers. The FSII is an “IG Farben 100 Year Family Reunion”, a federation is a coming together of independent and autonomous entities.



The Farben family chemical cartel was responsible for exterminating people in concentration camps. They embody a century of ecocide and genocide, carried out in the name of scientific experimentation and innovation. Today the poison cartel is wearing G-Engineering clothes, and citing the mantra of “innovation” ad nauseum. Hitlers concentration camps were an “innovation” in killing. 100 years later, the Farben Family are carrying out the same extermination, silently, globally, much more efficiently.

Monsanto’s “innovation” of collecting illegal royalties and pushing Indian farmers to suicide is also an innovation in killing without liability, indirectly. Just because there is a new way to kill does not make killing right, or a right. “Innovation” like every human activity, has limits – limits set by ethics, justice, democracy, the rights of people, the rights of nature.



I G Farben was tried at Nuremburg. We have national laws to protect people, their right to life and public health, and the environment. India’s Biosafety laws and Patent, and Plant Variety Act are designed to regulate greedy owners of corporations – with a history of crimes against nature and humanity.

Industry is getting ready to push its next “gene” the GM-Mustard (DMH-11). The GM mustard being promoted as a public sector “innovation” is based on barnase/barstar/ gene system to create male-sterile plants and a bar gene for Glufosinate Resistance.In 2002 Pro-Agro’s (Bayer) application for approval for commercial planting of GM Mustard based on the same system was rejected.

Although banned in India, Bayer finds ways to sell Glufosinate, to the tea gardens of Assam and the apple orchards of Himachal Pradesh, illegally. Sales agents show the Glufosinate sales under the ‘other’ category to avoid regulation. These chemicals are finding their way into the bodies of our children without government approval. Essentially all key patents related to the bar gene are held by Bayer Crop Science which acquired Aventis Cropscience, which itself was created out of the Genetic Engineering divisions of Schering, Rhone Poulenc and Hoechst. Then Bayer acquired Plant Genetics Systems, and entered into cooperation agreement with Evogene – which has patents on genome mapping.

Before any approval is granted to the Genetically Engineered Mustard, the issue of limits to patentability needs to be resolved on the basis of Indian law, patents on plants and seeds and methods of agriculture must not be allowed, because they are not allowed.

Pental, a retired professor and GM-Operative, will not commercialise GM Mustard seed. His Commanding Officers at Bayer/Monsanto/MOBAY will.

Given our experience with GMO cotton, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is considering the option of putting in place guidelines for socio-economic assessment to judge proposed GM varieties on the basis of factors such as economy, health, environment, society and culture.

http://m.thehindubusinessline.com

At the core of socio economic assessment is the issue of monopolies and cartels and impact on small farmers. Even though patents on seeds are not allowed, for more that one and a half decade Monsanto has extracted illegal royalties from Indian farmers, trapping them in debt, and triggering an epidemic of farmers suicides. Monsanto’s war on India’s foot soldiers – farmers – is a war being waged by the Farben Family, on our Earth Family.

DR. VANDANA SHIVA: Monsanto Merges with Bayer, “Their Expertise is War”. Shady Historical Origins, IG Farben, Part of Hitler’s Chemical Genetic Engineering Cartel.

Crimes agains Nature and Humanity / Global Research, September 18, 2016 / Award Winning Author and Scientist Dr. Vandana Shiva.

Monsanto trying to Hide GMO Foods under the Term "Biofortified"

Do genetically engineered crops and their pesticides make you think of the term "biofortified"? Chances are, the term biofortified makes you think of vitamins in kids' cereals.

Mega corporations are no strangers to propaganda and public relations.

Did you know that much of our non-organic crops are grown with human sewage sludge? No? That's because the practice is called "biosolids" to keep you in the dark.

You are probably aware of the sneaky disguises that sweeteners like aspartame and high fructose corn syrup were attempted to be concealed in ("corn sugar," anyone?)

There are no power grabs out of reach for Monsanto - they are now attempting the most ridiculous propaganda scheme of all.

They are attempting to manipulate definitions under Codex Alimentarius that would allow GMOs to fall under the classification of "biofortified" foods.

Codex is a collection of guidelines, codes and other recommendations relating to foods, food production, and food safety - that were created under the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

If you are thinking this is arbitrary and wondering why our country should pay any attention to such guidelines, you are heading in the right direction…

In the late 1990s, consumers feared that their vitamins and supplements would move to prescription-only under Codex guidelines.

According to National Health Federation (The NHF is the only natural health advocate that gets a seat at Codex, by the way!):

It all started out innocently enough several Codex Nutrition committee meetings ago when an international nongovernmental organization (INGO) named the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI - and sponsored by Harvest Plus) had one of its country contacts introduce a proposed new work at Codex (only member countries may introduce new work at Codex, not INGOs.)

Harvest Plus' method of increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops consists of the time-honored, conventional way of cross-breeding, not genetic engineering.

Harvest Plus, for example, will increase the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that malnourished populations in developing nations will receive better nutrition.

The new work at the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) was simple:

Craft a definition for Biofortification.

That definition could then be used uniformly around the World to apply to those foods conventionally fortified with higher levels of nutrients and everyone would be on the same page whenever the term "biofortified" was used.

Indeed, the National Health Federation (NHF) was an early supporter at Codex of this definition.

Poisoned in the Womb

This year's CCNFSDU meeting - hosted by the German Health Ministry in Berlin, Germany the first full week of December 2017 - witnessed a lively debate about not only how to define Biofortification but also whether or not the very word "Biofortification" should be used at all.

However, this was not the beginning of the debate. The NHF had two delegates there.

At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, the Chairwoman Pia Noble (married to a former Bayer executive) had started off the Biofortification-definition discussion by giving her incorrect personal opinion that the definition should be as broad as possible and that recombinant technology should be included.

Her statement, though, directly contradicted Australia's admission at the 2015 meeting that if the Committee were to refer to the original 2012 document on the scope of Biofortification, we would see that Biofortification only refers to conventional breeding and so we should clearly exclude GM techniques.

At last year's CCNFSDU meeting, however, Australia was silent on the issue.

In other words, the original mandate for creating the Biofortification definition was that it was to be defined as a process by which the nutritional quality of food crops is improved through conventional plant breeding with the aim of making the nutrients bioavailable after digestion.

Not surprisingly, though, soon enough, the Monsanto minions got their grubby little hands on the definition through influence peddling with Codex delegates and the Chairwoman, and the definition began changing into one that would include genetically modified "biofortified" foods.

So, the battle is on at Codex as to whether or not GM foods will be included within the definition of Biofortification.

I am sure that Monsanto would be thrilled to be able to market its synthetic products under a name that began with the word "Bio."

As of 2017, the definition of "biofortification" - including GMOs - under Codex has morphed into:

…the process whereby any nutrients or related substances of all potential source organisms (e.g. animal, plant, fungi, yeasts, bacteria) of/and foods are increased by a measurable level [and/or] become more bioavailable for the intended purposes.

The process applies to any method of production [and excludes conventional fortification]." [footnotes excluded]

Not only is the term "biofortified" for GMO foods confusing here in the U.S., but in European countries the prefix, bio, is used to denote "organic."

NHF took opposition with the term biofortified falling under these vague parts of the definition:

'all potential source organisms'

'the process applies to any method of production'

Footnote 4 ('Method of production should be determined by National/regional authority')

Dr. Noble retired, so hopefully her "heavy-handed" and crafty tactics of dictating the meeting to get the term biofortification to apply to GMOs will have left with her.

According to NHF,

Monsanto's attempt was recognized by many delegates for what it was and denounced in the meeting.

The fight, however, will carry over to next year's meeting to be held in Berlin in November 2018. And that meeting will be chaired by the Committee's new chairwoman, Ms. Marie-Luise Trebes.

As always, Big Biotech will be back to try again.

To be privy to the back-story and even drama that went on these meetings, hop on over to the National Health Federation!

by Heather Callaghan
January 11, 2018
from NaturalBlaze Website

READ MORE

Monsanto - A Multinational Factory of Death

Genetically Modified Organisms - Foods and Others

Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMOs

https://youtu.be/a6OxbpLwEjQ

Humanity is a “suicide cult” that deliberately poisons the food supply feeding its own children

(Natural News) It’s interesting that 15,000 scientists have just signed a new warning letter that explains humanity is committing suicide by destroying planet Earth with toxic chemicals, resource depletion, deforestation, ocean life depletion and more. This follows my own designation of humanity as a “suicide cult” that seems sure to destroy itself through the mass chemical poisoning of the planet.

But it’s not just the planet that’s collapsing — the fisheries collapse of the West Coast has now reached “catastrophic” levels — it’s also the fact that humans are so incredibly stupid, they deliberately poison their own food supply with toxic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, GMOs and hormone disruptors like atrazine, a “gender-bender” chemical that feminizes males. (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer are the mass murderers of our planet, all in the name of “science”…)

“A prophetic ‘warning to humanity’ giving notice of perils facing the Earth has been issued by more than 15,000 scientists from around the world,” writes the UK Daily Mail. Suddenly the entire scientific community sounds like Natural News, doesn’t it? We’ve been warning about collapse for years, and now 15,000+ scientists have just repeated what we’ve been reporting for a over a decade.

Humanity has unleashed a “mass extinction event”

“In the second warning letter to the globe, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries said humans had ‘unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century’,” writes the UK Daily Mail.

What do these scientists propose as solutions to these problems? All the usual globalist agendas, unfortunately: Depopulation, turning everyone into vegetarians and insect eaters, reproduction “licensing” to forbid people from having children, banning combustion engines, criminalizing carbon dioxide and so on.

Yes, the Orwellian science agenda to exterminate roughly 90 percent of the existing global population is a very real thing. They’re starting with Africa, too, since that’s where the population growth is the most rapid. I’m one of the leading scientists blowing the whistle, in fact, on the science agenda to exterminate blacks. (See video below.)
The Science Agenda to Exterminate Blacks from NaturalNews on Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/241627513

Murdering humanity through the food supply

What the entire “scientific” establishment is largely ignoring, however, is the agricultural poisoning of our food supply with toxic pesticides, herbicides and self-replicating GMOs.

In these podcasts, I expose how the “suicide cult” of humanity is deliberately poisoning the global food supply, leading to extermination.

November 14, 2017 by: Mike Adams

https://vimeo.com/239869232

TOXIC FOOD is killing humanity... SCIENCE now admits from NaturalNews on Vimeo.

Monsanto, Pesticides, Vaccines and Autism: If We Continue On This Route, “All Children Will Be Autistic By 2025”

ARJUN WALIA FEBRUARY 14, 2017

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.”

— October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

The rate at which autism instances have risen in the last 40 years is simply staggering. In 1975, 1 in every 5,000 people developed autism. In 1985, it was 1 in every 2,500, and in 2005, it was 1 in every 166.

Today it is approximately 1 in every 68 children. (source)

“If it is an environmental cause that’s contributing to an increase, we certainty want to find it.”

– Craig Newschaffer, an epidemiologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (source)

Research continues to surface indicating that autism goes far beyond just genetics, and that we may need to consider multiple factors (like environmental toxins, prescription drugs, etc) when trying to figure out what’s going on, and why autism rates continue to climb exponentially.

“It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California.”

– Irva Hertz–Picciotto, epidemiology professor at University of California, David (source)

Evidence is now pointing to the fact that agricultural pesticides (among various other environmental toxins) might play a large role in the rapid increase in autism rates over the past few decades. A senior researcher from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dr. Stephanie Seneff is doing her part to create more awareness of these facts, which have yet to make big news in the world of mainstream medicine.

At a recent event sponsored by the holistic-focused Groton Wellness Organization, she stated that “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” (source)

Seneff presented slides showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the rising use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (with its active ingredient glyphosate) on crops and the rising rates of autism. Her research also reveals that the side effects of autism mimic glyphosate toxicity and deficiencies.

Correlation Doesn’t Mean Causation, But…

Although the graph depicts a staggering correlation, it does not “prove” that the rise in autism is directly caused by glyphosate. On the other hand, we have a lot of information and research available that suggests it could be one factor (out of many) and Dr. Seneff argues that it is. Pesticides have been linked to a number of human health ailments, from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s to cancer and autism. You can access some of those studies (out of many) here.

Dr. Seneff’s research has also led her to believe that vaccines containing aluminum may also be a culprit. You can read more about that, and access that research, here.

The Toxicity of Glyphosate and Autism

In Dr. Seneff’s lecture, she pointed to the fact that Monsanto commonly argues that glyphosate is not toxic (despite numerous studies proving otherwise) because our cells don’t have what is called the “shikimate” pathway. What’s important to note, however, is that our guts do indeed have this pathway and we depend on it to supply us with essential amino acids (among other things). Gut health is of utmost importance to overall health, so this is quite disturbing. Seneff also points to the fact that there are other ingredients within glyphosate that greatly increases its toxic effects.

It makes one wonder, doesn’t it? How could a corporation like Monsanto — a corporation charged with regulating no less than our entire global food supply — claim that glyphosate is safe despite all of the evidence that confirms that it’s not?

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in the reviews they promote, which are often cited in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides. However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions”

— R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used every year on more than a billion acres. (source)(source)

It’s even been found in the breast milk of mothers, and in urine samples of people across Europe. (source)

The main toxic effects of glyphosate as identified by Dr. Seneff include:

-Kills beneficial gut bacteria and allows pathogens to overgrow

-Interferes with function of cytochrome p450 (CYP enzymes)

-Chelates important minerals (iron, cobalt, manganese, etc)

-Interferes with synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine – leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate

-Disrupts sulfate synthesis and sulfate transport

Pesticide formulations that are sold and used are up to 1,000 times more toxic than what regulators commonly claim. Roundup is in fact the most toxic of herbicides and insecticides used. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that also point to flawed safety evaluations. You can read more about that here.

“Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments. It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their APs in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer “

— R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Seneff notes a number of well-known “bio-markers of autism.” These include low serum sulfate, disrupted gut bacteria, inflammatory bowel, serotonin and melatonin deficiency, mitochondrial disorder, zinc and iron deficiency, and more. She also points to the fact that “These can all be explained as potential effects of glyphosate on biological systems.” 

Dr. Seneff goes into much greater detail, and to access that science you can click HERE. To access most of her recent research of these topics you can click HERE. To view her entire lecture you can click HERE.

It’s also important to note here that a recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that following an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults by 90%.

Cynthia Curl, an assistant professor in the School of Allied Health Sciences Department of Community and Environmental Health at Boise State University, recently published a pesticide exposure study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Results of her research indicated that, among individuals eating similar amounts of vegetables and fruits, the ones who reported eating organic produce had significantly lower OP pesticide exposure than those who normally consume conventionally grown produce. You can read more about that here.

Beyond Dr. Seneff: More Research

“The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before. . . . The tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth. The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry; they lie and favor business over the health of the population.”

– Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health (source)(source)(source) (Related CE Article on the GMO/Cancer link in Argentina here)

There is a tremendous amount of recent research being conducted that has looked into the role of environmental toxins, like agricultural pesticides, in autism.

For example, a study coming out of the University of California Davis determined that pregnant women who live in close proximity to land and farms where chemical pesticides are/were applied experience a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or some other developmental disorder.

“This study validates the results of earlier research that has reported associations between having a child with autism and prenatal exposure to agricultural chemicals in California. While we still must investigate whether certain sub-groups are more vulnerable to exposures to these compounds than others, the message is very clear: Women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible.”

– Janie F. Shelton, a UC Davis graduate student who now consults with the United Nations, lead author of the study (source)

You can read more about that HERE.

A new study published in the journal PLOS Computational Biology, from researchers at the University of Chicago, also revealed that autism and intellectual disability (ID) rates are linked with exposure to harmful environmental factors during congenital development.

In another case, a group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth and brain malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany, the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects (source). In fact, there is plenty of research confirming that mothers who are exposed to commonly used “safe” pesticides give birth to children with lower intelligence, structural brain abnormalities, behavioural disorders, compromised motor skills, higher rates of brain cancer, and small head size. You can read more about that here.

The list goes on and on, and you can access more studies like these HERE.

“What’s appalling is that we have known about these dangers for decades yet have done little about it. Nearly 20 years ago, scientists at the National Research Council called for swift action to protect young and growing bodies from pesticides. Yet today, U.S. children continue to be exposed to pesticides that are known to be harmful in places they live, learn and play.”

– Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)

What About Vaccines?

Please refer to this article: The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

Sources:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/Groton_Seneff.pdf

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/Seneff_AutismOne_2014.pdf

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1003518

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/pdf/479022a.pdf

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307044/

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/8978

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-rise-driven-by-environment/

http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/pesticides-and-childrens-health

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

Gated Development - is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?

Every January, Bill Gates sets out his vision for a better world and the role the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can play in achieving this in an annual letter to us all. With assets of $43.5 billion, the foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world. It is arguably the most influential actor on issues of global health and agriculture, and distributes more aid for global health than any government.

Gated Development demonstrates that the trend to involve business in addressing poverty and inequality is central to the priorities and funding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We argue that this is far from a neutral charitable strategy but instead an ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation. Big business is directly benefitting, in particular in the fields of agriculture and health, as a result of the foundation’s activities, despite evidence to show that business solutions are not the most effective.

Perhaps what is most striking about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is that despite its aggressive corporate strategy and extraordinary influence across governments, academics and the media, there is an absence of critical voices. Global Justice Now is concerned that the foundation’s influence is so pervasive that many actors in international development, which would otherwise critique the policy and practice of the foundation, are unable to speak out independently as a result of its funding and patronage. 

Download Gated Development (PDF)

TAKE ACTION

Hypnotic Trance In Delhi: Monsanto, GMOs And The Looting Of India's Agriculture

RINF, Global Research, Countercurrents

We are about to enter August. And that's a special month in India. Each year, on the 15th, the country commemorates the anniversary of independence from Britain. To mark the occasion, official public celebrations take place in Delhi with flag waving and fly-pasts, and the corporate media is awash with patriotic sentiments. Behind the scenes, however, agriculture, the very heart and soul of the nation, will continue to be restructured for the benefit of foreign interests, raising the question: just where does the notion independence sit with such a policy?

In India, small farms account for 92 percent of all farms and occupy around 40 percent of all agricultural land. They form the bedrock of food production. Indeed, small farms produce most of the world's food [see this]. Facilitated by an appropriate policy framework, smallholders could easily feed the global population.

Throughout the world, however, there is a concerted effort to remove farmers from the land. Smallholders are squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world's farmland, and the world is fast losing farms and farmers through the concentration of land into the hands of big agribusiness, institutional investors and the powerful moneyed classes. If nothing is done to reverse this trend, the world will lose its capacity to feed itself.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers in India have taken their lives since 1997 and many more are experiencing economic distress or have left farming as a result of debt, a shift to (GM) cash crops and economic liberalisation [see this]. Facilitated by the WTO and the US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, there is a deliberate strategy to make agriculture financially non-viable for India’s small farms, to get most farmers out of farming and to impose a World Bank sanctioned model of agriculture. The aim is to displace the current model and replace it with a system of industrial (GM) agriculture suited to the needs of Western agribusiness, food processing and retail concerns. 

If you want to see the kinds of impact this could have, look no further than what has happened in Mexico on the back of NAFTA, in terms of rising food insecurity, bad health and poisoned agriculture (not to mention a devastated economy with former workers driven into the arms of drug cartels to make a living).

It’s not difficult to see where policy makers’ priorities lie in India. Trade and food policy analyst Devinder Sharma has highlighted such priorities:

“Agriculture has been systematically killed over the last few decades... because the World Bank and big business have given the message that this is the only way to grow economically… 60 percent of the population lives in the villages or in the rural areas and is involved in agriculture, and less than two percent of the annual budget goes to agriculture… When you are not investing in agriculture... You are not wanting it to perform..."

There is a huge con-trick taking place in India: support given to agriculture is portrayed as a drain on the economy and is reduced, while the genuinely massive drain of tax breaks, bail outs, sops, tax avoidance and evasion that benefit industry and the rich are afforded scant attention. Despite these advantages, industry has failed to deliver. And yet regardless of the gross under-investment in agriculture, it still manages to deliver bumper harvests year after year.

Sharma continues:

“In the last 10 years, we had 36 lakh crore going to the corporates by way of tax exemptions. Where are the jobs? They just created 1.5 crore (15 million) jobs in the last ten years. Where are the exports? ... The only sector that has performed very well in this country is agriculture. Year after year we are having a bumper harvest. Why can’t we strengthen that sector and stop the population shift from the villages…?” (36 lakh crore is 36 trillion rupees: 64 rupees = 1 USD)

Corporate-industrial India has failed to deliver in terms of boosting exports or creating jobs, despite the massive hand outs and tax exemptions given to it [see this and this]. The number of jobs created in India between 2005 and 2010 was 2.7 million (the years of high GDP growth). According to International Business Times, 15 million enter the workforce every year [see here].

With GDP growth slowing and automation replacing human labour the world over in order to decrease labour costs and boost profit, where are the jobs going to come from to cater for hundreds of millions of agricultural workers who are to be displaced from the land or those whose livelihoods will be destroyed as transnational corporations move in and seek to capitalise industries that currently employ tens of millions?

India’s development is being hijacked by the country’s wealthy ruling class and the multinational vultures. Meanwhile, the entrepreneurs who work the fields and have been custodians of the land and seeds for centuries, are being sold out to corporate interests whose only concern is to how best loot the economy. (Over the past decade or so, Monsanto has appropriated $900 million from small farmers in India.) 

Thanks to its political influence and removal of choice, Monsanto already dominates the cotton industry in India with its GMOs. It is increasingly shaping agri-policy and the knowledge paradigm by funding agricultural research in public universities and institutes. Its practices and colonisation of institutions have led to it being called the ‘contemporary East India Company', and regulatory bodies are now severely compromised and riddled with conflicts of interest where decision-making over GMOs are concerned.

It should be made clear, however, that the Monsanto enterprise in India is a corrupt one, something that the pro-GMO lobby conveniently ignores. Just like it chooses to ignore the fraudulent way by which GMOs were placed onto the commercial market in the US.

In a recent piece, Vandana Shiva spells out the fraudulent nature of Monsanto in India in some detail. First, she notes that on a global level Monsanto imposed the false idea of ‘manufacturing’ and ‘inventing’ seeds in order to slap patents on them, or in India’s case extract massive royalties. Second, its collection of these royalties as ‘trait value’ or as a ‘fee for technology traits’ is an intellectual property rights category that does not exist in any legal framework. It was concocted by Monsanto lawyers to work outside of the laws of the land and is thus illegal. Third, the introduction of GMOs without approvals, and thus Monsanto’s original entry into India, was a violation and subversion of India’s biosafety regulations. 

To compound the deceptions, Monsanto forwards the myth that GM food is necessary to feed the world's burgeoning population. Its claims are always hidden behind a flimsy and cynical veil of humanitarian intent (helping the poor and hungry), which is easily torn away to expose the hypocrisy and self-interest that lies beneath. The world does not need GM to feed itself. GM and these humanitarian sentiments are little more than a Trojan horse aimed at securing greater control of food and agriculture.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge and Science for Development Report stated that smallholder, traditional farming (not GMOs) can deliver food security in low-income countries through sustainable agri-ecological systems. Moreover, the roots of hunger and food poverty result from structural factors, including trade, distribution problems, lack of personal income and the increasingly globalised and exploitative system of industrialised agriculture and food production [for instance, see this, this and this]. The companies behing the GM project are part of that system: they fuel it and profit from it. Through patents and royalties, GM ensures greater profits and greater control over food and agriculture.

India's Standing Committee on Agriculture unequivocally concluded that GM seeds and foods are dangerous to human, animal and environmental health and directed the former Government of Manmohan Singh to ban GMOs. Despite this and the recommendations to put a hold on open field GM trials by the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee, such trials are being green-lighted.

The GM biotech sector should not be trusted, however. The issues raised in Shiva’s recent piece aside, as the sector’s largest player, Monsanto is responsible for knowingly damaging people's health and polluting the environment and is guilty of a catalogue of decades-long deceptive, duplicitous and criminal practices [see this]. It has shown time and again its contempt for human life and the environment and that profit overrides any notion of service to the public, yet it continues to propagate the lie that it has humanity's best interests at heart because its so-called GMO ‘frontier technology' can feed the hungry millions.

The sector attempts to control the ‘science' around its product, places restrictions on any independent research into its products and censors findings that indicate the deleterious impacts of its products. It also attacks scientists who reach conclusions not to its liking [see this]. It cannot demonstrate that yields are better, nutritional values are improved, health is not damaged or that harm to the environment does not occur with the adoption of GMOs. Independent studies and evidence, not inadequate industry funded or back ones, have indicated yields are often worse and pesticide use has increased, health is negatively impacted, soil is damaged and biodiversity is undermined, among other things.

Agriculture used to cement US global hegemony

Around 56 percent of Russia's agricultural output comes from family farms which occupy less than 9 percent of arable land. A remarkable achievement that is mirrored in many countries across the world. Russia does not need or want GM crops, which the Russian Prime Minister has described as amounting to little more than a form of biological warfare weapon. And Russia is correct to regard agriculture in this way because the US has for many decades used it as a means of subjugating other nations.

The oil-rich Rockefeller family set out to control and profit from global agriculture via the petrochemical-dependent ‘green revolution'. Along with other players, such as Cargill Grain Company, Rockefeller interests set out to destroy family farms in the US and the indigenous agriculture and food security of other countries (and also to depopulate the 'third world' and ensure the US population remained ignorant, apathetic and easy to control). This hegemonic strategy was actively supported by their stooges the US government [for a summary of what occurred, see this] and facilitated globally through 'free' trade agreements, the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Thanks to the Trojan horse agritech corporations, GMOs now represent the ultimate stranglehold of US interests over food via ‘terminator' seed technology, seed patenting and intellectual property rights. (And let it not be overlooked that Monsanto now 'owns' the Epicyte 'sterility' gene.)

Despite compliant politicians and officials in high places in India who seem hell-bent on capitulating to Monsanto and facilitating US hegemonic interests, many recognise the dangers associated with GMOs and are working hard to resist their introduction. However, they are attacked and accused of slowing down growth because of their resistance to GMOs. Certain activists and civil organisations are also accused of working against the national interest by colluding with foreigninterests to undermine ‘development '. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious: the state itself has for a long time been colluding with foreign interests to undermine the basis of traditional agriculture.

This is similar to the type of cynical attack experienced by opponents of GM the world over, whose resistance to GM is portrayed as robbing food from the bellies of the poor and as ‘anti-human’. While espousing fake concern for the poor in order to help line the pockets of big agribusiness, the pro-GMO lobby says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities thanks to agri-business-backed IMF/World Bank/WTO policies or the devastating effects of GMOs in places like South America. 

While dodging these issues, it sets out to denigrate opponents and to portray the real solutions (as opposed to the bogus GM solution) its critics offer for hunger and poverty as being ‘anti-capitalist twaddle’ or some other uniformed, cheap slur. This lobby has been unable to win the debate on GM, so slick PR, dirty tricks and smears are thus the order of the day.

The political backing for GMOs by the US State Department, the strategic position of the US GM biotech sector in international trade agreements (from TTIP to the US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture) and at the WTO and the push to get GMOs into India and to contaminate agriculture via open-field trials with the compliance of key officials and official bodies does not bode well.

The impending GMO onslaught in India is ultimately part of a US-led neoliberal invasion (and part of a global war on working people - whether they are smallholders in India or workers in Greece or the US), resulting in the selling off to private concerns of seeds, retail, water, airports, land, industry, energy, telecommunications, etc. 

If the beneficiaries are not always India’s ruling class, then they are its senior associates in the interlocking directorate of state-corporate interests in the West who have plundered their own economies and are now plundering the rest of the planet under the guise of 'globalisation'. Those behind this project regard the folk whose lands are taken, wealth appropriated and livelihoods stripped away as ‘collateral damage’.

Part of the strategy involves convincing ordinary people that all of this is necessary and that it represents progress. And Part of it involves convincing everyone that the ability to flag-wave, do fly-pasts and express patriotic sentiments in Delhi on 15th August somehow constitutes ‘independence’. 

by Colin Todhunter