Filed under: agriculture, Bio Weapons, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, fda, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically modified, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, softkill
Is Monsanto’s Corn Destroying Your Internal Organs?
Sustainable Food
January 8, 2010
Yes, this is another story about Monsanto, the controversy-prone American agricultural giant that, according to Greenpeace, sells 90 percent of the world’s genetically modified seeds.
The company’s dominance is such that even the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating it for possible antitrust practices.
But the government has been a willing partner in marketing GMO crops, repeatedly refusing to require GMO foods to be labeled (as the E.U. does) and signing off on their alleged safety.
Funny thing about that: There’s hardly any research to back it up: The government hasn’t funded it and independent researchers can’t get a hold of the — patented — seeds.
What studies there are don’t look good. One Australian report suggests the GMO corn made by Monsanto causes significant fertility problems in mice (and, by implication, possibly humans).
And a new study — which had to resort to analyzing data sets produced by studies conducted by Monsanto and another biotech firm, Covance Laboratories, and submitted to European governments because researchers couldn’t get seeds — has found that Monsanto corn impairs rats’ kidneys and livers. The “data strongly suggests” that after just 90 days of eating GM corn, rats experienced kidney toxicity and showed effects to their hearts, adrenal glands, spleen and blood cells. (The study was published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences.)
The authors explain that their analysis of the data differed from Monsanto’s because the company overlooked different reactions in male and female rats. The ag giant continues to maintain that its GMO corn is safe.
So what happens to humans who eat GM corn products as well as animals who’ve been fed GM corn? That’s a darn good question, and one the U.S. government ought to have an answer to before waving these products into the food supply. (And if you think that just because humans and livestock aren’t dropping dead on the spot GMOs must be fine, read this very sane analysis.)
Take action and Get the FDA to Suspend Approval for Monsanto’s GMO corn.
Filed under: agriculture, animal cruelty, ben bernanke, Bio Weapons, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, fda, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically modified, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, health and environment, Holocaust, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, softkill | Tags: health alert, spider goat
Monsanto named “Company of the Year” by Forbes Magazine
NoWorldSystem
January 7, 2010
Monsanto is named “2009 Company of the Year” by Forbes Magazine. This is just another slap in the face on the American people, just as devaluer-in-chief Ben Bernanke was nominated “Man of The Year” by Times Magazine, it’s completely absurd.
Filed under: Animal Abuse, animal cruelty, Bio Weapons, bovine growth hormone, cancer, depopulation, Dictatorship, Empire, Eugenics, fda, food market, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically engineered food, genetically modified, Genocide, GM, gm food, GM foods, GMO, GMOs, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, rBST, soft kill, toxicity, Uncategorized | Tags: (IGF-1, Cancer Prevention Coalition, CPC, homogenization, milk, pasteurization
Genetically engineered hormones used by dairy industry promote cancer
E. Huff
Natural News
November 17, 2009
An industry report claiming that the genetically-engineered hormone Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) is safe has received criticism from the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) for its dubious findings. Funded by producers of rBST, the report was conducted entirely by industry-paid consultants rather than by independent, credible scientists, indicating it is fallacious.
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the CPC, lambasted the report for failing to recognize the grave, scientifically-proven dangers imposed by rBST. Author of the 2006 book What’s In Your Milk?, Dr. Epstein stated the report was “blatantly false”.
One of the primary effects of rBST on cows is that is causes them to become seriously ill with various diseases including mastitis, an infection of the udder that ultimately contaminates milk with pus. Commonly branded as Posilac, rBST unnaturally increases milk production at the expense of the cow’s health, the repercussions of which are passed on to the consumer.
Monsanto, the original creator of rBST, was forced to reveal the truth that rBST induces roughly 20 toxic effects, all of which end up tainting the milk with disease. When farmers then treat these illnesses with antibiotics, those too end up in the milk that is eventually drunk by unsuspecting consumers.
Got milk hormones?
Research has also revealed that rBST-treated milk is both chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk and that traces of the hormone end up in the milk. Those who drink rBST-tainted milk readily absorb the hormone in their digestive tract which is then assimilated into the blood.
Milk from rBST-treated cows contains unnaturally high levels of natural growth factor (IGF-1) which inhibits the body’s natural defense mechanisms designed to fend off cancer. Well-documented scientific studies have implicated the hormone in precipitating prostate, breast, and colon cancer.
CPC has been working for decades to eliminate rBST from the milk supply. In 1990, the group issued a warning in conjunction with over 40 other organizations about the dangers of rBST. The warning fell upon deaf ears at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which continued to accept the flawed notion that rBST was safe in spite of its proven dangers.
In 2007, CPC sent a petition to the FDA entitled “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST”, which was endorsed by several farmer and consumer protection groups. Citing Congressional concerns about the hormone that date back to the 1980s, as well as countless studies illustrating the toxicity of rBST, these groups labored to reform the FDA’s flawed position. Unfortunately, the FDA ignored the facts and continues to keep the interests of industry as its priority at the expense of consumer protection.
Dr. Epstein’s recommendation, especially for children who are most susceptible to cancer-causing additives like rBST, is to choose organic milk if they are going to drink milk at all. Organic milk is not allowed to contain rBST or any artificial hormones and is the best alternative to conventional milk that may be tainted with rBST.
Organic, raw milk is the most preferable option as it is a whole, living food rich in beneficial enzymes, probiotics, and other nutrients that get destroyed during pasteurization and homogenization. Many believe raw milk is a perfect food rich in essential vitamins and high in protein.
Filed under: agriculture, animal cruelty, Bio Weapons, cancer, David Rockefeller, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, Empire, EPA, Eugenics, Eugenics Society, Fascism, fda, food market, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically engineered food, genetically modified, genetics, Genocide, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, GMO, GMOs, health and environment, Holocaust, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, Population Control, rockefeller, Science and technology, soft kill, super weapons, syngenta, toxicity, White House | Tags: Michael Taylor, spider goat
GMO foods are changing the DNA of humans
Filed under: agriculture, food crisis, food market, food shortage, genetically modified, Genocide, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Holocaust, India, Prince Charles
The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
Daily Mail
November 3, 2008
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.
The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father’s body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.
As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India’s economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.
Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.
Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years’ earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.
There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on – they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless – as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.
Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.
As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. ’He was a loving and caring man,’ she said, weeping quietly.
’But he couldn’t take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.’
Shankara’s crop had failed – twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India’s ancient story.
But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.
Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.
Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts – and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
The crisis, branded the ’GM Genocide’ by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a ’global moral question’ – and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.
Filed under: 2008 olympics, agriculture, asia, beijing, China, EPA, Eugenics, fda, federal crime, genetically modified, Genocide, Globalism, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, melamine, Monsanto, olympics, Population Control, USDA | Tags: cyromazine, dangerous candy, deadly candy, halloween, halloween candy, herbicide glyphosate, hersheys, infant deaths, infanticide, John Schorr, kelloggs, kidneys, lactose powder, M&Ms, made in china, mars, milk, non-fat milk powder, pet food, powdered milk, roundup, roundup ready, sugar, sugar beet, sugar beets, target, trick or treating, u.s. food safety, u.s. food supply, wheat gluten, whole milk powder
Halloween Candy With Melamine on U.S. Store Shelves?
This Halloween, Say No To Candy Containing GM Sugar
Joanne Waldron
NaturalNews
October 27, 2008
Parents in Brazil are refusing to feed their children products made using genetically-modified sugar, according to an article at Food & Water Watch. Halloween is just around the corner, and unbeknownst to many American parents, foods like Kellogg’s cereal and Hershey’s chocolate may be made with sugar from genetically-modified sugar beets, warns Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel in a report at NewWest.net. There are many reasons that parents of American children need to be concerned.
Why Would They Use GM Sugar Beets?
Not surprisingly, it’s all about the money. These sugar beets have been genetically altered so that they can withstand regular applications of a weed killer made by Monsanto known as RoundUp. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently increased the allowable residue of the active ingredient of the weed killer (known as glyphosate) on beetroots by a whopping 5000%. Those scientists at the EPA are really doing their jobs protecting everyone, eh?
What’s The Trouble With Glyphosate?
So, what’s the trouble with the weed killer residue? Probably the biggest issue is that there have been studies linking glyphosate exposure to cancer and other health problems. Of course, there is also the Network of Concerned Farmers, a group of farmers who believe that glyphosate can create “super weeds” that are resistant to herbicides. Then, of course, there is a concern that these frankenfood crops may be responsible for the gene pollution of other crops and plants.
Monsanto Hires a Team of Lobbyists – Parents Must Take Action!
While the sugar industry is trying to keep their use of genetically-modified sugar beets quiet, Monsanto has hired a whole team of lobbyists to work on their behalf. This is why it is very important for concerned parents to make their views known before it is too late! Contact Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@house.gov, and tell her that laws are needed to protect consumers from genetically-modified sugar beets. It is also important to send faxes to lawmakers. One can (at the time of this writing) send two free faxes per day at FaxZero.com right from any computer with an Internet connection (see terms and conditions at the site). Consumers should never have to worry about getting cancer from eating a piece of Halloween candy. (Even if parents are strict about what their children eat at home, it’s hard to police what they might be given at at class parties at school.) Why not send a free fax to two different lawmakers every single day? If enough people complain, lawmakers will have to listen. E-mail or fax this article to lawmakers today.
Don’t Support Child Slave Labor
Unfortunately, there is another reason to be concerned about the candy one purchases. According to an article by Dr. Edward Group, two of the companies that rule the chocolate industry (M&M/Mars and Hershey’s) purchase much of their cocoa from the Ivory Coast. Unfortunately, Ivory Coast cocoa farms use child slave labor to work their farms. Parents must consider whether they really want their children indulging in sweets made at the expense of other children.
Dr. Group: Put Your Money Where Your Health Is
Dr. Group believes parents can make their voices heard by voting with their dollars, by purchasing only organic chocolate and candy products. Dr Group asks parents to ask themselves if they would buy a chocolate bar if the label on the product said: “Consuming this candy bar may cause cancer – contains sugar from genetically engineered beets, cocoa harvested by child slaves, and harmful pesticides and fungicides.” Sounds much less appealing, doesn’t it?
Filed under: agriculture, EPA, genetically modified, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, idaho, minnesota, Monsanto, north dakota, Science and technology, USDA | Tags: halloween, herbicide glyphosate, hersheys, John Schorr, m&M, mars, roundup, roundup ready, sugar, sugar beet, sugar beets, u.s. food supply
Sugar now coming from genetically modified sugar beets
Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 7, 2008
This year saw the first commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets in the United States, with that sugar to hit the food supply soon after.
Farmers across the country will soon be planting Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered for resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide glyphosate (marketed as Roundup). John Schorr, agriculture manager for Amalgamated Sugar, estimates that 95 percent of the sugar beet crop in Idaho will be of the new GM variety in 2008, or a total of 150,000 out of 167,000 acres.
Approximately 1.4 million acres of sugar beets are planted in the United States each year, primarily in Minnesota and North Dakota’s Red River Valley, as well as the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains and Great Lakes areas.
In response to the anticipated flood of GM sugar onto the food market, the consumer group Citizens for Health has launched an email campaign to pressure three major sugar and candy companies to refuse the new product. In 2001, American Crystal Sugar, Hershey’s and M&M Mars all promised that they would not use GM sugar; Citizens for Health is asking consumers to email those companies from the group’s Web site and urge them to keep that promise.
“Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, the infiltration of GE sugar beets represents a significant alteration of our food supply,” Citizens for Health says on its Web site. “Unlike traditional breeding, genetic engineering creates new life forms that would never occur in nature, creating new and unpredictable health and environmental risks.”
In 1999, candy companies’ refusal to purchase GM sugar scuttled Monsanto’s first attempt to introduce Roundup Ready sugar beets.
On another front, a coalition of farmer and environmental groups is seeking to block the planting of the GM beets through a federal lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the case – the Center for Food Safety, High Mowing Organic Seeds, the Organic Seed Alliance and the Sierra Club – are represented by lawyers from the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice.
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) changed the classification of Roundup Ready sugar beets from regulated to deregulated, meaning that the GM beets could be planted without a special permit. But the lawsuit alleges that the USDA failed to properly conduct an environmental review into the impacts of this deregulation.
“The law requires the government to take a hard look at the impact that deregulating Roundup Ready sugar beets will have on human health, agriculture and the environment,” said Greg Loarie of Earthjustice. “The government cannot simply ignore the fact that deregulation will harm organic farmers and consumers, and exacerbate the growing epidemic of herbicide resistant weeds.”
Critics point out that Roundup Ready crops encourage increased chemical use, with dangerous effects on both human health and the environment. In addition to contaminating soil and water, pesticides leave potentially dangerous residue on food plants themselves.
Citizens for Health says that this is a particular concern in light of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent compliance with a Monsanto request to increase the allowable levels of glyphosate residue on sugar beet roots by 5000 percent.
“Sugar is extracted from the beet’s root, and the result is more glyphosate pesticide in our sugar,” the group said.
Another concern is that such plants encourage the development of “superweeds” that are resistant to Roundup.
“Just as overuse of antibiotics eventually breeds drug resistant bacteria, overuse of Roundup eventually breeds Roundup-resistant weeds,” said Kevin Golden of the Center for Food Safety. “When that happens, farmers are forced to rely on even more toxic herbicides to control those weeds.”
USDA data reveals that in the 10 years after the 1994 introduction of Roundup Ready crops, herbicide use increased by 15 times. This has led to a concurrent increase in superweeds. While no cases of Roundup-resistant weeds were known in the U.S. corn belt in 2000, this year the roster of such weeds includes marestail, common and giant ragweed, waterhemp, Palmer pigweed, Cocklebur, lambsquarters, morning glory and velvetleaf.
Ninety-nine percent of U.S. superweeds are resistant to Roundup.
GM crops may also cross-breed with non-GM plants of the same or closely related species. The primary seed-growing region for sugar beets – the Willamette Valley of Oregon – is also a major seed-growing area for the closely related organic chard and table beets. Since all these species are wind pollinated, the chances of contamination are very high.
“Contamination from genetically modified pollen is a major risk to both the conventional and organic seed farmers, who have a long history in the Willamette Valley,” said Matthew Dillon, director of advocacy for the Organic Seed Alliance. “The economic impact of contamination affects not only these seed farmers, but the beet and chard farmers who rely on the genetic integrity of their varieties.”
Crops contaminated by cross-pollination with GM varieties can no longer be certified organic.
Since corn syrup is an even more widely used sweetener than sugar and the majority of corn grown in the United States is also Roundup Ready, food safety advocates note that nearly all sweetened food in the United States will soon be GM. Because U.S. law does not require labeling of GM ingredients, consumers of products from candy to breakfast cereal will soon be unknowingly exposed to engineered sugar, with unknown health consequences.
“As a consumer, I’m very concerned about genetically engineered sugar making its way into the products I eat,” Neil Carman of the Sierra Club said.
Filed under: agriculture, fda, genetically engineered, genetically modified, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Mad Cow, Monsanto, Science and technology | Tags: cloned, cloned animals, cloned beef, frankenfoods, genetically engineered eggs, genetically engineered meat, genetically engineered milk, genetically modified eggs, genetically modified meat, genetically modified milk, GM eggs, GM meat, GM milk, pig mouse, round-up ready, u.s. food supply
More “Frankenfoods” heading toward American dinner tables
Telegraph
September 18, 2008
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed legal framework which is expected to open the market to meat and milk produced from modified animals, which detractors have already termed “Frankenfood”.
Such creatures, which could include new hen breeds capable of laying healthier eggs and cows that are immune to mad cow disease, have been developed already.
But producers have been discouraged from marketing their creations by the absence of clear rules governing such a controversial issue.
The government wants the guidelines to resolve questions such as as whether altered animals are safe for human consumption or whether they pose a risk to the environment.
“Genetic engineering of animals is here and has been here for some time,” said Larisa Rudenko, a science policy adviser with the FDA’s veterinary medicine centre.
“We intend to provide a rigorous, risk-based regulatory path for developers to follow to help ensure public health and the health of animals.”
Consumer groups welcomed plans to regulate the area but were alarmed by apparent gaps in the proposals.
They pointed out that the FDA does not, for example, plan to insist that all such meat, fish and poultry be labeled as genetically-engineered.
“They are talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union. “We are close to speechless on this.”
The FDA has already ruled that cloned animals – which are not the same – are safe to eat.
The agency will continue to exempt genetically-altered animals that pose little risk, such as aquarium fish that were recently changed so they would glow in the dark.
Genetically-engineered animals, which are created by the insertion of a gene from one species of animal into the DNA of another, could fulfil a similar role in food production to GM plants.
Genetic engineering is already widely used in agriculture to produce higher-yielding or disease-resistant crops. However, all sides are aware that consumers may be rather more alarmed by the idea of eating GM meat.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.c..you-genetically-engineered-meat/
Monsanto’s Dangerous Herbicide Will Generate $1.8 Billion in Profits
http://v.mercola.com/b..rate–1-8-Billion-in-Profits-70015.aspx
Filed under: agriculture, Britain, Dissent, Europe, european union, genetically modified, global economy, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, Inflation, Monsanto, Police State, Prince Charles, Protest, United Kingdom | Tags: prince of wales
Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster
Telegraph
August 12, 2008
The mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world’s worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.
In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone “seriously wrong”.
The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth’s soil by scientists’ research.
He accused firms of conducting a “gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong”.
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, atlantic, Bio Weapons, biochemicals, Biological Attack, biological warfare, blockade, Britain, China, Condoleezza Rice, Congress, Coup, Europe, european union, False Flag, federal crime, France, genetically modified, georgia, GM, gulf, h.con.res.362, Iran, Iran war resolution, Israel, Japan, man made disease, man made diseases, middle east, Mikheil Saakashvili, Military, military strike, moscow, NATO, navy, neocons, Nuke, ocean, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Propaganda, putin, Russia, Saber Rattling, Shock and Awe, South Ossetia, Soviet Union, Syria, Tehran, Troops, United Kingdom, War Crimes, war games, War On Terror, WW3, ww4 | Tags: kadafi, nuclear war, soldiers, u.s. soldiers, US Naval warships, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Iwo Jima, USS Pearl Harbor, USS Peleliu, USS Ronald Reagon, USS Roosevelt, USS Theodore Roosevelt
Massive U.S. Naval Armada Heads For Iran
Europe Business
August 7, 2008
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the “enemy force”.
The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.
They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.
Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.
The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Also likely to join the battle armada:
UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships
French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships
Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the “enemy” forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:
USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate
The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).
The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East’s oil supply.
The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria’s Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart.
A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons.
Kuwait has activated its “Emergency War Plan” as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.
The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off.
Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES.
United States was once ally of Iran for the “War On Terror”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009504.html
US threatens Iran with ‘punitive’ measures
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2370594,00.html
Israel Building Up Strike Capabilities Against Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/07/isr..e-capabilities-against-iran/
Iran submits nuclear letter, no mention of freeze
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3578123,00.html
U.S.: Iranian Response On Nukes Unacceptable
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92C9MC81&show_article=1
Kadhafi warns ‘arrogant’ Iran of military humiliation
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080805155712.qouscvqz.html
Filed under: Africa, Britain, Europe, european union, fda, genetically modified, GM, gm crops, health and environment, Science and technology, United Kingdom, USDA | Tags: cloned, cloned animals, cloned beef, u.s. food supply
Cloned Beef Has Already Entered U.S. Food Supply, Even Before FDA Nod
Natural News
July 29, 2008
The major cattle cloning companies in the United States have admitted that they have not bothered to try and keep meat from the offspring of clones out of the U.S. food supply, in spite of a request by the FDA several years ago.
“This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain,” said Donald Coover, who owns a specialty cattle semen business. “Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re not being honest.”
Coover admitted that for several years, he has been openly selling semen from cloned bulls. He is sure, he added, that others are doing the same.
The revelation came as the FDA approved cloned beef as safe for human consumption but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked farmers to keep it out of the food supply anyway.
The USDA’s primary concern is that if cloned beef enters the U.S. food supply, other countries might refuse to purchase beef from the United States. Similar problems have emerged in the past with genetically modified U.S. crops being rejected, particularly in Europe but also in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Insiders from agencies such as the USDA and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that a product that no other country wants to buy might do the United States more harm than good.
The USDA’s request for a moratorium on cloned beef is meant to give time for “an acceptance process” that will be needed “given the emotional nature of this issue.”
A survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation found that 22 percent of U.S. residents surveyed had a favorable impression of cloned meat in 2007, as opposed to 16 percent in 2006. Approximately 50 percent had a negative impression of such food.
The FDA has rejected calls to require the labeling of food produced from cloned animals.
Filed under: 1984, 4th amendment, Big Brother, breathalyzer, Britain, California, Camera Ban, Canada, CCTV, Checkpoints, Control Grid, Dictatorship, DNA Database, european union, GM, london, Oppression, police brutality, Police State, Surveillance, Taser Guns, United Kingdom, US Constitution
Austin wants officers to stick needles in drunk drivers
KXAN
July 1, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas – Austin’s police chief has a new idea to draw your blood if you refuse a Breathalyzer test.
Austin Police Department Chief Art Acevedo is hoping to start the program this year with a federal grant. It would train his DWI officers to take you to jail and get a search warrant for your blood.
“My intent in the future is to make it so there is no such thing as a refusal. You can refuse all you want, but we are going to aggressively seek search warrants,” said Acevedo.
The search warrant would give an officer the right to stick a needle in your arm to get a blood alcohol level, replacing the job of a jail nurse.
“It’s about saving money for the taxpayer. If I have an officer that’s already involved in a case, they’re already going to be going to court. Come to find out, the defense attorneys around here are telling people not to give them a test,” said Acevedo.
“Folks that are exercising their right shouldn’t be afraid, that by doing so, ’Bubba Police Officer’ may stick them in the arm,” said Austin DWI attorney Ken Gibson. Police officers shouldn’t play nurse as well. he added.
“The officer’s going to have a liability if they don’t do it right. The city’s going to have a liability if they don’t do it right. Police officers don’t want to be out sticking needles in people,” said Gibson.
“If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and say, ’Hey, give me four to five nurses on my staff,’ I’d be more than happy to do it, but that’s not going to work,” said Acevedo. Instead, Acevedo said he’s got a whole fleet of officers ready to train.
“Probably as many as I can get the federal government to train for me,” Acevedo said.
Austin Police Association President George Vanderhule learned about the proposal Monday from KXAN Austin News. He said he did not want to comment on behalf of his officers until he spoke with Acevedo.
Acevedo said he would not ask for taxpayer money in Austin but at the federal level. He’s hoping to start the program by the end of this year.
DNC protests will be behind fence
Denver Post
June 30, 2008
The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.
That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.
But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.
The ACLU has said it wants to avoid the conditions that existed during the 2004 convention in Boston, where protesters were caged, infuriating First Amendment advocates.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23951515-5016937,00.html
“And Leave the Laptop with Us”
http://www.ohmproject.org/..k=view&id=69&Itemid=1
Atlanta Police stalk Critical Mass
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-40338
Taser use could put police under fire
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/451010
Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming
http://www.motorists…in-car-breathalyzers-coming/
Roadside Blood & Urine Testing In Canada
http://www.canada.com/..=74d88f4a-64ef-4999-8845-40d1f1cd3058
Policeman Charged After Woman Body Slammed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008062..t=AjaJlCiygpEHvPX9ZkyyZflH2ocA
Man Accused Of Killing Pr. George’s Officer Dies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/c..tml?referrer=emailarticle#
Police Used “Agents Provocateurs” At UK Bush Protests
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/260608Provocateurs.htm
Filed under: Australia, big pharma, Britain, defense department, Department of Defense, DoD, drinking water, Europe, european union, genetically modified, GM, gm food, health and environment, Japan, medical industrial complex, nanotech, nanotechnology, tap water, United Kingdom
Nanotech: Why Something So Small Can Be So Dangerous
Alternet
June 23, 2008
“It’s green, it’s clean, it’s never seen — that’s nanotechnology!”
That exuberant motto, used by an executive at a trade group for nanotech entrepreneurs, reflects the buoyant enthusiasm for nanotechnology in some business and scientific circles.
Part of the slogan is indisputably true: nanotechnology — which involves creating and manipulating common substances at the scale of the nanometer, or one billionth of a meter — is invisible to the human eye.
But the rest of the motto is open for debate. Nanotech does hold clean and green potential, especially for supplying cheap renewable energy and safe drinking water. But nanomaterials also pose possible serious risks to the environment and human health — risks that researchers have barely begun to probe, and regulators have barely begun to regulate.
What’s more, the potential damage could take years or even decades to surface. So these tiny particles could soon become the next big thing — only to turn into the next big disaster.
Nano enthusiasts see it as the next “platform technology” — one that will, like electricity or micro-computing, change the way we do almost everything. While that prediction is still unproven, there’s no question that nanotech is booming. Universities, industry, and governments around the globe are pouring billions into creating and developing nanoproducts and applications. A range of nanotechnologies is already used in more than 600 consumer products — from electronics to toothpaste — with global sales projected to soar to $2.6 trillion by 2014.
Environmentalists, scientists, and policymakers increasingly worry that nanotech development is outrunning our understanding of how to use it safely. Consider these examples from last month alone:
- An animal study from the United Kingdom found that certain carbon nanotubes can cause the same kind of lung damage as asbestos. Carbon nanotubes are among the most widely used nanomaterials.
- A coalition of consumer groups petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the sale of products that contain germ-killing nanosilver particles, from stuffed animals to clothing, arguing that the silver could harm human health, poison aquatic life, and contribute to the rise of antibiotic resistance.
- Researchers in Singapore reported that nanosilver caused severe developmental problems in zebrafish embryos — bolstering worries about what happens when those antimicrobial products, like soap and clothing, leak silver into the waste stream.
- The U.S. Department of Defense, in an internal memo, acknowledged that nanomaterials may “present… risks that are different than those for comparable material at a larger scale.” That’s an overarching risk with nanomaterials: Their tiny size and high surface area make them more chemically reactive and cause them to behave in unpredictable ways. So a substance that’s safe at a normal size can become toxic at the nanoscale.
- Australian farmers proposed new standards that would exclude nanotechnology from organic products.
- The European Union announced that it will require full health and safety testing for carbon and graphite under its strict new chemicals law, known as REACH (for Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical Substances). Carbon and graphite were previously exempt, because they’re considered safe in their normal forms. But the U.K. study comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos, along with a similar report from Japan, raised new alarms about these seemingly
Old Materials, New Risks
The EU’s move is a critical step toward recognizing nanomaterials as a potential new hazard that requires new rules and new information.
The raw materials of nanotechnology are familiar. Carbon, silver, and metals like iron and titanium are among the most common. But at the nanoscale, these well-known substances take on new and unpredictable properties. That’s what makes them so versatile and valuable. It also makes them potentially dangerous in ways that their larger-scale counterparts are not.
Filed under: 1984, 4th amendment, Big Brother, breathalyzer, Britain, California, Camera Ban, Canada, CCTV, Checkpoints, Control Grid, Dictatorship, DNA Database, european union, GM, london, Oppression, police brutality, Police State, Surveillance, Taser Guns, United Kingdom, US Constitution | Tags: MADD, Toyota
Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming
Eric Peters
Motorists.org
June 25, 2008
If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?
Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.
At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.
But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
No conviction necessary.
Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.
Roadside Blood & Urine Testing In Canada
Montreal Gazette
June 25, 2008
Drivers who get behind the wheel while high on drugs will face roadside testing and they could be ordered to surrender urine, blood or saliva samples at the police station under a controversial new law that takes effect one week from today.
Drivers who refuse to comply will be subject to a minimum $1,000 fine – the same penalty for refusing the breathalyzer.
Police will be given their new powers to nab drug-impaired drivers after almost five years of intense debate in Parliament.
The law, passed this year after three failed attempts, has been lauded by law enforcement and other groups who say drug-impaired drivers are escaping unpunished at a time when their numbers are climbing.
“Love it,” said Gregg Thomson, a father from Kanata, Ont., who predicted yesterday the new testing will deter people from driving under the influence of drugs, just as the breathalyzer test produced a drop in drunk driving.
Thomson has been lobbying for a new law since 1999, when his son, Stan, and four of his high school friends were killed when a 17-year-old who had been smoking marijuana attempted a highway pass that led to a pileup.
The crash became a catalyst for the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving to start pushing for changes to the Criminal Code, which outlaws drug-impaired driving, but until now has not included measures that allow police to order a battery of tests.
The new law, however, has sparked warnings about potential court battles from critics who contend demanding bodily fluids is overly intrusive and scientifically unreliable in detecting drug impairment.
“This is going to be challenged left and right,” predicted Murray Mollard, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
Beginning next Wednesday, drivers suspected of being high will be required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as walking a straight line. If they fail, they will be sent to the police station for further testing by a trained “drug recognition expert” and then be forced to give blood, urine, or saliva samples if they flunk the second test as well.
Critics say while there is a measurable link between blood alcohol levels and driving ability, research is lacking to equate drug quantity and impairment.
Another potential problem in testing bodily fluids is that they can detect marijuana smoked several days or months earlier and the effect has worn off.
“This kind of testing doesn’t test for impairment, it tests for past use of a substance and we know with certain substances they stay for a long time,” Mollard said.
California Will Try To Ban Driving With Cell Phones
AP
June 26, 2008
Next week California will try to wrest cell phones from the hands of drivers, telling everyone from movie starlets and dot-com millionaires to surfers and soccer moms that conversations behind the wheel must be on a headset.
Several U.S. states and some two dozen countries around the world already have restrictions on mobile phones while driving but now such a law has come to California — where the car is king and much of life is spent on the famously snarled freeways.
Californians interviewed by Reuters mostly supported the law requiring hands-free phones in cars and outlawing cell phones entirely for drivers under 18, which takes effect on Tuesday — though they were puzzled by a loophole that allows seemingly more dangerous text messaging.
Others cast a jaundiced eye on lawmakers, who they blame for failing to build more freeways or public transportation in the face of increasingly gridlocked roads in the nation’s most populous state and say hands-free conversations are no safer.
“I can’t believe that (Californians) will put up with all these nanny, nit-picking laws,” KFI-AM radio talk-show host John Kobylt told Reuters.
“It’s stupid because we’ve gone over about seven different studies and each one of them says it’s the conversation that distracts you, not holding the phone,” he said.
Recent News:
Change Your Grades On Computer Face 38 Years
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news../article4168112.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news..-CCTV-fears.html
“I Think I’m Being Watched” posters in London Underground
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/240608beingwatched.htm
Seizing Laptops and Cameras Without Cause
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/seizinglaptopsandcameraswithoutcause
Photographers You Are All Al-Qaeda Suspects
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008..grapher_stops/print.html
Man dies in custody after Taser incident involving Ontario police
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080623/canada/toronto_taser_death
British use anti-terror cameras to spy on litterbugs
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/..cameras-to-spy-on-litterbugs/
Artificially Intelligent CCTV Cameras
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/CCTV-cameras-with–an.4214414.jp
Surveillance Cameras To Be Installed Throughout City
http://www.wlwt.com/news/16711143/detail.html
Is Britain Turning Into A Dictatorship?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/22/civilliberties
Justice Department’s interim report into deaths points to need for strict limits on use of Tasers
Overzealous drug war claims another casualty
Boca Raton Proposes City-Wide Surveillance System
Real Time Crime Detection Cameras
The Bush administration now wants to watch you from the sky
Filed under: Britain, Europe, european union, France, GM, gm crops, gm food, gordon brown, health and environment, United Kingdom
Gordon Brown Wants More GMO Animal Feed
London Independent
June 20, 2008
Gordon Brown is calling on the European Union to relax its rules on importing genetically modified animal feed in a further sign of the Government’s willingness to embrace the controversial technology. Mr Brown believes GM crops are vital to the attempt to cut spiralling food prices.
His proposal comes the day after The Independent revealed that the Environment minister, Phil Woolas, has held private talks with the biotechnology industry about relaxing Britain’s policy on the use of GM crops.
The Prime Minister also signalled that he is happy to see a public debate over whether GM crops should be grown commercially in Britain to reduce global prices by boosting production. His spokesman said last night: “His view is that we must be guided by the scientific evidence.”
Ministers who support GM crops believe there are no convincing arguments against them. They want to turn the tables on environmental groups who campaigned successfully against widespread GM production in Britain during the last government review in 2004. Although there is no ban, the ministers want the rules changed in light of the food crisis, as no GM crops are currently being grown commercially in this country.
At a two-day summit in Brussels which began last night, EU leaders were urged to “bite the bullet” and embrace GM products as a solution to rocketing food prices. The plea came from Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. Several EU countries, led by France, are unconvinced that “Frankenstein foods” are safe.
Filed under: bayer, EPA, Germany, GM, health and environment, medical industrial complex, merck, Uncategorized, Vaccine | Tags: honeybees, rice
Germany bans Bayer chemical linked to honeybee devistation
Guardian.co.uk
May 23, 2008
Germany has banned a family of pesticides that are blamed for the deaths of millions of honeybees. The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) has suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products used in rapeseed oil and sweetcorn.
The move follows reports from German beekeepers in the Baden-Württemberg region that two thirds of their bees died earlier this month following the application of a pesticide called clothianidin.
“It’s a real bee emergency,” said Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeepers’ Association. “50-60% of the bees have died on average and some beekeepers have lost all their hives.”
Tests on dead bees showed that 99% of those examined had a build-up of clothianidin. The chemical, produced by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer, is sold in Europe under the trade name Poncho. It was applied to the seeds of sweetcorn planted along the Rhine this spring. The seeds are treated in advance of being planted or are sprayed while in the field.
The company says an application error by the seed company which failed to use the glue-like substance that sticks the pesticide to the seed, led to the chemical getting into the air.
Bayer spokesman Dr Julian Little told the BBC’s Farming Today that misapplication is highly unusual. “It is an extremely rare event and has not been seen anywhere else in Europe,” he said.
Clothianidin, like the other neonicotinoid pesticides that have been temporarily suspended in Germany, is a systemic chemical that works its way through a plant and attacks the nervous system of any insect it comes into contact with. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency it is “highly toxic” to honeybees.
This is not the first time that Bayer, one of the world’s leading pesticide manufacturers with sales of €5.8bn (£4.6bn) in 2007, has been blamed for killing honeybees.
In the United States, a group of beekeepers from North Dakota is taking the company to court after losing thousands of honeybee colonies in 1995, during a period when oilseed rape in the area was treated with imidacloprid. A third of honeybees were killed by what has since been dubbed colony collapse disorder.
Bayer’s best selling pesticide, imidacloprid, sold under the name Gaucho in France, has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers in that country since 1999, after a third of French honeybees died following its widespread use. Five years later it was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment in France. A few months ago, the company’s application for clothianidin was rejected by French authorities.
Bayer has always maintained that imidacloprid is safe for bees if correctly applied. “Extensive internal and international scientific studies have confirmed that Gaucho does not present a hazard to bees,” said Utz Klages, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience.
Last year, Germany’s Green MEP, Hiltrud Breyer, tabled an emergency motion calling for this family of pesticides to be banned across Europe while their role in killing honeybees were thoroughly investigated. Her action follows calls for a ban from beekeeping associations and environmental organisations across Europe.
Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the German-based Coalition Against Bayer Dangers, said: “We have been pointing out the risks of neonicotinoids for almost 10 years now. This proves without a doubt that the chemicals can come into contact with bees and kill them. These pesticides shouldn’t be on the market.”
U.S. rice farmers want class action against Bayer
Reuters
May 23, 2008
Germany’s Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) is battling to keep thousands of U.S. rice farmers from becoming part of a massive class-action lawsuit over the contamination of commercial rice supplies by a Bayer biotech rice not approved for human consumption.
In hearings this week in federal court in St. Louis, Missouri, lawyers representing rice farmers said about 7,000 long-grain producers in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas should be allowed to seek unspecified damages against Bayer for contamination that was uncovered in August 2006.
Farmers suffered extensive losses, both from a plunge in rice prices, and in a drop in export business as Japan and the European Union moved to restrict U.S. rice from crossing their borders.
Many farmers also were not able to plant a crop the following year because of seed shortages tied to the contamination, and had to undertake costly clean-up efforts, according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Bayer is fighting the class-action move, and both sides are now awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry .
“We believe that the individual actions brought by plaintiffs are not appropriate for consolidation under the rules governing class-action proceedings,” Bayer attorney Bruce Mackintosh said in a statement.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Don Downing said class-action status was the best way to help farmers who lost money, markets, and in some cases, an entire season’s crop.
“This is their livelihood,” Downing said.
About 700 rice farmers have filed lawsuits against Bayer following the August 2006 disclosure that the company’s genetically altered experimental rice had somehow contaminated food supplies.
While the United States is a small rice grower, it has been one of the world’s largest exporters, sending half of its crop to foreign buyers.
The genetically engineered long-grain rice in question has a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of a herbicide used to kill weeds.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration said there was no public health or environmental risks associated with the genetically engineered rice and the two agencies elected not to punish Bayer for the contamination.
http://www.canada.com/..d=1be275ca-cd91-4bfc-96a6-f311f7514bb4
FDA Finds Contaminated Vaccines At Merck
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/18099659.html
Drug taken to stop smoking is linked to traffic mishaps
http://www.latimes.com/features/h..-2008may25,0,4540550.story
Filed under: Britain, Europe, genetically modified, GM, gm food, health and environment, nanotech, nanotechnology, United Kingdom
UK: 104 Products Contain Toxic ’Grey Goo’
Daily Mail
March 11, 2008
Some skin creams use nano particles but many are now concerned about the use of the technology in foods
Potentially toxic chemicals are being incorporated into food, packaging, health supplements and other products by stealth, it is claimed.
Manufacturers boast that nanoparticles can deliver drugs or vitamins more effectively, kill harmful bugs in food or create self-cleaning windows.
But scientists, consumer groups and green campaigners fear the technology is being introduced into the diet, body and environment without proper safety checks.
Nanoparticles are 80,000 times thinner than a human hair – so small they can cross membranes protecting the brain or a baby in the womb.
Critics say it is not known how such tiny particles will interact with the body and organs in the long term, whether they are toxic or how long they will persist in the body.
Doom-mongers have warned that nanoparticles could mutate and reproduce out of control, consuming all life on earth, a scenario often referred to as “grey goo”.
Yesterday a report by Friends of the Earth said current regulations are “ill-equipped” to deal with the unique properties of nanoparticles.
It said: “Despite concerns about the toxicity risks of nanomaterials, consumers are unknowingly ingesting them because regulators are struggling to keep pace with their rapidly expanding use.”
The study found at least 104 food and agricultural products available in Europe, including the UK, which use nanotech particles or technology.
This includes some nutritional supplements under the Solgar brand, cling wrap and containers, antibacterial kitchenware, processed meats, chocolate drinks, baby food and chemicals used in agriculture.
Friends of the Earth’s food and farming spokesman, Helen Holder, said: “Europeans should not be exposed to potentially toxic materials in their food and food packaging until proper regulations are in place to ensure their safety.
“In the absence of proper safety regulations or mandatory labelling, consumers are being left in the dark about the products they consume and are unknowingly putting their health and the environment at risk.”
A Government sponsored report, published before Christmas, said a shortage of money for research had created an absence of basic information about nanoparticle toxicology.
It said research into how long these tiny particles persist in the body is urgently needed.
The consumer group Which? has called on the Government to set up a task force to take immediate steps to establish how nanotechnologies are being used in the UK and to urgently address gaps in current regulations.
Filed under: 1984, ADA, Alex Jones, Atzlan, Big Brother, Bill Clinton, biometrics, Bohemian Grove, brainwashing, Child Abuse, Conditioning, David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, Eugenics, fluoride, Genocide, George Bush, global elite, global government, Globalism, GM, gm food, gordon brown, health and environment, Hillary Clinton, Hitler, Iraq, Martial Law, Media, Media Fear, Monsanto, Nazi, New World Order, North American Union, Oppression, Police State, Population Control, Propaganda, skull & bones, skull and bones, SPP, Surveillance, Tony Blair, Troops, UN, War On Terror
Question Your Reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFu_bYkomc
Filed under: genetically modified, GM, Science and technology, south korea, strange news
Koreans Clone Glow In The Dark Kittens
AFP
December 12, 2007
South Korean scientists have cloned cats by manipulating a fluorescent protein gene, a procedure which could help develop treatments for human genetic diseases, officials said Wednesday.
In a side-effect, the cloned cats glow in the dark when exposed to ultraviolet beams.
A team of scientists led by Kong Il-keun, a cloning expert at Gyeongsang National University, produced three cats possessing altered fluorescence protein (RFP) genes, the Ministry of Science and Technology said.
“It marked the first time in the world that cats with RFP genes have been cloned,” the ministry said in a statement.
“The ability to produce cloned cats with the manipulated genes is significant as it could be used for developing treatments for genetic diseases and for reproducing model (cloned) animals suffering from the same diseases as humans,” it added.
The cats were born in January and February. One was stillborn while two others grew to become adult Turkish Angoras, weighing 3.0 kilogrammes (6.6 pounds) and 3.5 kilogrammes.
“This technology can be applied to clone animals suffering from the same diseases as humans,” the leading scientist, Kong, told AFP.
“It will also help develop stemcell treatments,” he said, noting that cats have some 250 kinds of genetic diseases that affect humans, too.
The technology can also help clone endangered animals like tigers, leopards and wildcats, Kong said.
South Korea’s bio-engineering industry suffered a setback after a much-touted achievement by cloning expert Hwang Woo-Suk turned out to have been faked.
The government banned Hwang from research using human eggs after his claims that he created the first human stem cells through cloning were ruled last year to be bogus.
Hwang is standing trial on charges of fraud and embezzlement.
South Korean Cloned Cats Glow Red In The Dark
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/l…page_id=1965&ito=1490
Police tear-gas farmers in clash over French GM crops
Independent
August 27, 2007
Growing tensions in France between opponents and supporters of genetically modified crops have led to violent confrontations.
Gendarmes used tear gas and batons to prevent pro-GM farmers from invading a picnic for militant opponents of genetically modified maize at the town of Verdun-sur-Garonne in south-west France over the weekend.
Hardly a day has gone by this summer without opponents of GM maize – both environmental campaigners and small farmers – invading fields and trampling or cutting down crops. The protesters, led by the small- farmers’ leader, José Bové, claim a citizens’ right to destroy crops which, they say, threaten ecological calamity and the subjection of farmers to the whims of agro-industrial, multinational companies.
Tempers have risen to boiling point since the suicide earlier this month of a farmer in the Lot département who had agreed to plant a small section of GM maize. He took his life a few days after he had been warned that anti-GM protesters planned to hold a picnic on his fields.
The largest French farmers’ federation, the FNSEA, called for Saturday’s demonstration to protest against attacks on crops and alleged government inaction. Gendarmes used tear gas to prevent the farmers from crossing a bridge to the site of the anti-GM picnic, which was addressed by the extravagantly moustachioed M. Bové.
“If Bové keeps on cutting down our crops, we’re going to shave his moustache,” said one protester.
Michel Masson, head of the FNSEA in the central area of France, said: “There has already been one death and I can tell you that many farmers, rather than hang themselves from a tree, are now ready to take their rifles off the wall.”
The confrontation is partly between town and country. It is also a confrontation between two different approaches to agriculture. The FNSEA supports a “scientific” and highly productive approach to agriculture. M. Bové and his supporters argue for a traditional, small-scale approach.
Successive governments have shied away from legislating clearly on GM crops. Most types are banned but farmers have been allowed to plant, experimentally, a variety of maize called MON810, developed by the US company, Monsanto, which is said to be immune to insect attack.
FDA Says No Label For Nanotechnology
Reuters
August 3, 2007
CHICAGO (Reuters) – The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday said the rising number of cosmetics, drugs and other products made using nanotechnology do not require special regulations or labeling.
The recommendations come as the agency looks at the oversight of products that employ the design and use of particles as small as one-billionth of a meter. There are fears by consumer groups and others that these tiny particles are unpredictable, could be toxic and therefore have unforeseen health impacts.
A task force within the FDA concluded that although nano-sized materials may have completely different properties than their bigger counterparts, there is no evidence that they pose any major safety risks at this time.
“We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the label,” said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy and planning, during a briefing with reporters.
As least 300 consumers products, including sunscreen, toothpaste and shampoo are now made using nanotechnology, according to a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars report.
The technology is also being used in medicine, where scientists are developing tiny sensors that detect disease markers in the body, and in the food industry, which is using it to extend shelf life in food packaging.
The FDA now treats products made with nanotechnology the same way it handles all products — requiring companies to prove safety and efficacy before their product can come to market.
But some product categories, such as cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold, which already worries some advocates. Producing them with nanotechnology adds another layer of concern.
The International Center for Technology Assessment, a nonprofit policy group that is suing the FDA calling for more oversight over the technology, said the recommendations lack teeth.
“Nano means more than just tiny. It means these materials can be fundamentally different, exhibiting chemical and physical properties that are drastically different,” said George Kimbrell, staff attorney at the group. “The consumer is being made the guinea pig.”
The group sites studies showing certain types of the particles can cause inflammatory and immune system responses in animals as an example of possible dangers.
The FDA said it will soon issue guidance documents for industries using nanotechnology, which include pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and consumer products firms.
Lutter said the task force concluded that nanotechnology is not substantially different from earlier emerging technologies such as biotechnology or irradiation.