July 23, 2017

Glyphosate Contaminants In Processed Brand Name Foods

Glyphosate is the main chemical active in several brands of agricultural and corporate farming herbicides used in the growing fields; in GMO seed crop cultures; and in what’s called “preharvest staging” [1]. That’s when the herbicide is sprayed several days [3 to 5 days] prior to crop harvest to “ensure” seed heads mature evenly. Some consider that process acts as a “desiccant.”

The more commonly-used herbicide is Roundup® manufactured by Monsanto. In GMO farming, there is Roundup Ready® seeds, which are totally different from heirloom or non-GMO seeds. One specific difference is GMO seeds have patents on them, meaning something has been done to modify the seed from the parent or original plant strain produced by Nature.<<<Read More>>>

Share

The Satanic Evil of EnvironMENTALism

wake up america

Share

“Fighting for the U.S.Cattle Producer” – To Know Where Your Food Comes From

A Press Release from the R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America:

Billings, Mont. – Although their deadline for completing and passing the nation’s fiscal year 2016 spending bill expired 79 days ago, today both houses of Congress cheered as the President signed their $1.1 trillion measure, which will now cover only nine and one-half months, the time remaining in the 2016 fiscal year.

By wide margins – 318-109 in the House and 65-33 in the Senate – the dilatory Congress passed the massive spending bill knowing full well that within the dark reaches of its more than 2000 pages was a provision that had nothing to do with government spending but everything to do withsatisfying multinational campaign contributors.

Section 759 of the spending bill strips U.S. citizens of their right to know the origins of their food, specifically the origins of the beef and pork and ground beef and ground pork that hundreds of millions of consumers purchase at retail grocery stores for themselves and their families. The U.S. law that mandated the labeling of beef and pork with country of origin labels was implemented in 2009 and is known as the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law.

Congress did this and the President concurred without any congressional debate, let alone public debate. Section 759 was cemented into the massive spending bill behind closed doors.

According to R-CALF USA, this was Congress’ and the President’s gift to a handful of multinational meatpackers that want to expand the list of countries from which they currently source their beef to sell to unsuspecting U.S. consumers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the current list of beef sources includes 15 countries.

“Those meatpackers are having difficulty marketing beef in the U.S. market from countries such as Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Canada at prices that satisfy their shareholders. This is because our COOL law empowered consumers to differentiate United States-produced beef from the beef imported from less developed countries,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.

Bullard said the multinational meatpackers first tried to repeal the COOL law in Congress in 2008 but was unsuccessful because the issue was then subject to the democratic process of open debate. In 2013 the meatpackers tried again to repeal COOL but this time in the U.S. judicial system. They filed a complaint in a U.S. district court and subsequently appealed their case to a U.S. court of appeals. The district and appellate courts soundly rejected the meatpackers’ claims that COOL violated their rights.

“But the meatpackers enlisted the help of the governments of Canada and Mexico to bring their grievance against COOL to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was more than happy to help them deprive U.S. citizens of their right to know where their food was produced,” Bullard remarked.

Bullard said the WTO was poised to authorize Canada and Mexico to impose retaliatory tariffs in the amount of just over $1 billion if the United States did not capitulate to the meatpackers’ demand that COOL be repealed or take the next step.

“The next step in the process was for the President to direct his cabinet members to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Canada and Mexico to resolve their parochial concerns with our COOL law before any retaliatory tariffs could be implemented, but the President and his cabinet remained indifferent to the potential loss of the right of U.S. citizens to know the origins of their food,” Bullard explained.

“Now the Congress and the President have foreclosed any opportunity to preserve our COOL law through diplomatic channels when together they gifted the repeal of COOL to the multinational meatpackers in the 2016 spending bill,” Bullard concluded.

Share

Sportsmen’s Alliance Joins Wild Harvest Initiative

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

The Sportsmen’s Alliance has joined forces with Conservation Visions, Inc. on a groundbreaking new scientific project to quantify the annual wild protein harvest from hunting and fishing in the US and Canada.

“For the Sportsmen’s Alliance, protecting hunting and fishing includes contributing to research that highlights the roles of hunting and fishing in food security.  Seldom is it acknowledged that the activities of hunting and fishing produce local, organic, injection-free protein, in addition to all the human health benefits of being active outdoors” said President and CEO of Sportsmen’s Alliance, Nick Pinizzotto. “We pride ourselves on making decisions based on science and not emotion and propaganda. Partnering on this study is an important step to bringing people together that share a love of wild harvest, and are concerned about food security and where their food comes from.”

The Wild Harvest Initiative, a five-year project designed to accurately measure the actual biomass of wild animal protein harvested recreationally in the United States and Canada, will assess the nutritional, cultural and economic value of harvested game, as well as the ecological and financial costs of replacing this food through standard agricultural and domestic livestock production.

“The harvest and consumption of wildlife has been an integral part of the human story throughout the entirety of our existence,” said Shane Mahoney, President and CEO of Conservation Visions, and widely recognized wildlife biologist and conservationist. “Agricultural and technological progress have certainly altered the ways that we obtain our food, but in many regions of the world, including in the U.S. and Canada, human populations continue to rely on wild harvest for a significant part of their diet.”

The results of the Initiative will enable a better understanding of the economic and ecological impacts of current land management approaches and will help validate policies that lead to benefits for people, wildlife, and the natural habitats that support both. This will in turn, enable wildlife managers and policy makers to develop best practices for access to wild protein resources, and for extending benefits to as many people as possible.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance encourages all organizations interested in wild harvest to join the Wild Harvest Initiative. For more information please contact Brian Lynn, blynn@sportsmensalliance.org or Steve Gullage,steve@conservationvisions.com.

Share

Does Climate Change Play a Role in Putin’s Aggression in the Ukraine?

March 25, 2014
Mr. John L. Casey

Certainly, it looks as though the primary reason for the Russian action in Ukraine is part of Putin’s long range plan to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. Is climate change on his mind as he executes his militaristic Ukrainian strategy while taking full advantage of the feckless foreign policy of President Obama? Maybe. Should it be? Absolutely!

Putin, two steps ahead of President Obama on international affairs, is actually years ahead of President Obama on climate change. Our hapless President continues to reinforce the myth of manmade global warming and engaging in active deception of the American people on the subject. Putin, however, appears to be doing exactly what he needs to do to prepare for the predicted extreme cold climate that my climate research company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC,) and Russia’s leading climate scientists have warned about. That’s right, for those who haven’t been informed yet; global warming ended years ago and a potentially dangerous new cold climate has begun!

The next climate change to a predicted long cold epoch which threatens Russia’s control over the vital national resources of wheat and its long standing need for a warm water port, may be among the more important and undiscussed drivers underlying the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Securing these resources may cause him to insure he has complete control over all of the Ukraine beyond the just annexed Crimea and as much of the northern Black Sea as he can take. This bold assertion rightfully demands some explanation.

The new cold climate, a once-every-206-year event, is brought on as a result of the Sun making historic reductions in its energy output, which is leading us inextricably down the path to a much colder Earth. This “solar hibernation” has already brought about a stunning reversal from the past global warming to a new colder climate leaving the ‘warmist’ and environmental communities scrambling for new reasons for existence, e.g. ocean acidification. The widely available real world temperature data shows that not only have we had no global warming for seventeen years, but that oceanic and atmospheric temperatures have been declining for much of the last eleven years. Sea ice extent globally has reached record levels. The brutal record cold winter of 2013-2014 is but one example of many, that a fundamental change in the climate has arrived. This new cold is like the solar hibernation that has caused it, unstoppable!

The absence of discussion by our media and government, much less action to prepare for the next cold climate epoch in the US, is completely opposite in Russia! It is ironic and deeply saddening that in what was the former communist Soviet Union, scientists are more free to tell the truth about what is really happening with the Earth’s climate, than are their US colleagues. As a result, Russian climate scientists are way ahead of their shackled US counterparts on the status of this next change to a long cold climate. Tragically, here in the US, it would be a career ending move if a government scientist or government funded university climate researcher told the truth about this new cold phenomenon. President Obama has made it clear that US scientists are to mislead the people about what is happening with the climate. He has done so via executive order and in public statements where he has made public policy. In June 2013 at Georgetown University, for example, he made the statement that global warming was “accelerating” – a shockingly false statement!

Similarly, the Russian media has no problem printing articles from their climate experts about the coming cold climate and its potentially calamitous effects. With the exception of a relatively few like Newsmax and the Orlando Sentinel, major US media outlets are silent on what may become the most important news story of the century. In Russia, the media have reported that researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences are warning that a new “Little Ice Age” is coming, possibly in 2014! It is this new extreme cold epoch and its many ill-effects that could be an important secondary driver behind Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Unlike the US, Russia is no stranger to bitter cold and nationwide food deprivation. Their history is full of such episodes caused by natural forces and augmented by political turbulence and warfare. It is part of their country’s historical, social, and political makeup. There is a stark difference therefore, between the current US and Russian view of the next climate change. In the US, there is no future cold climate threat! Yet many ‘in the know’ in Russian view it as ‘a clear and present danger!’ As a result, while on the surface their rationale for a Ukraine invasion is political, underneath, the Russians well understand what other ‘jewels’ Ukraine has to offer.

I believe one of those jewels and reasons for a Russian takeover staring in the Crimea, is to secure complete access to Ukrainian wheat and other crops as they did in days of the former Soviet Union. In 2012, Russia proper produced 38 million metric tons of wheat, fifth largest in the world. Ukraine came in with 16 million tons about half of Russia’s output yet, making it number eleven in the global rankings. It is possible under current cold climate scenarios published in the Global Climate Status Report©, a product of the Space and Science Research Corporation, that Russia may see a substantial loss of its grain crops during the next cold climate. This could result in them becoming partially or totally dependent on the Ukraine for much of the bread on Russian tables. The quantities are not the only point – the geography matters too.

The Russian homeland is centered along latitude 60 degrees north. This is the same as northern Canada and Alaska! Russia in the winter is a vast cold land. Even the Ukraine, near the southern most extent of Russia, is about the same latitude as the wheat belt of southern Canada. What if the Russian Academy of Sciences is correct and we see another Little Ice Age start this year or in the next five or even ten years. What if Russia loses much or all its harvest of wheat for years in a row? They will turn as they have before – to Ukraine.

The March 10, 2014 Global Climate Status Report states that this new cold climate will likely “…result in substantial, global, social disruption and loss of life.” The US government, US agricultural conglomerates and the US main stream media are well aware of the new cold climate because of frequent updates provided to them over the years by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC).

Putin cannot allow the western leaning Ukrainian government to permit European, or US agricultural conglomerates to have access to Ukraine’s wheat during the coming cold climate, leaving his people without the food they will be demanding.

History has shown that when the people begin to starve, they take down their government and wars begin. The French revolution of 1789, which eventually placed Napoleon Bonaparte on the throne, took place at the very beginning of the last 206 year solar cycle’s cold phase. Doubtless, President Putin has no interest in seeing any political upheaval on his watch. He will want Ukraine’s crops and will do what is needed to keep European and US agriculture conglomerates out of the way.

But what about the warm water port issue. The world has long known that Russia has historically sought out warm ports where its navy could hold up during winters and to be able to respond year-round to Russian military requirements as they also attempt to project their military force globally. But during this new cold climate, it will be different. The port issue will be paramount!

Again, if the Russian climate researchers are correct, then the far northern waters of the planet especially the Baltic Sea and waters around Russia’s northern ports could be frozen over, not just for a few months in winter, but for most if not all of the year! During the coldest time of the Little Ice Age from 1615 to 1745, the Baltic Sea was so cold for so long that roads, hotels, and shops were built on the frozen sea and people walked between counties over the thick ice. No, this would not be just another cold winter adversely affecting Russia’s fleet for a predictably short few months. This could be a period of time when Russia’s military, especially its navy, could be crippled, making it vulnerable to other foreign designs. Putin cannot permit that either. He will want to hold on to the recently annexed Crimea and its ports and as many other warm water ports along the Black Sea that he can capture, thus prohibiting NATO naval forces from moving in.

All the while, the wily Russian President Putin remains way ahead of President Obama. In the United States, the manmade climate change deception has become a joke. In Russia, as its history of incredible hardships shows, the changing climate may be viewed today as a matter of life and death. The incursion into the Ukraine though essentially political, may also be the first steps the Russians are taking to prepare for the coming cold!

****************************
Mr. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. Mr. Casey is best known as the leading advocate in the US for a national and international plan to prepare for the next climate change which he has predicted to be one of a dangerous cold climate era. He is also the Editor of the Global Climate Status Report© and is the author of the internationally acclaimed climate book, “Cold Sun.” Mr. Casey is currently the President of a climate research company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), in Orlando, Florida. In March 2013, he was named “America’s best climate prediction expert,” by Watchdogwire.com.

Share

Liberal Groups Demand Obama Raise Food Prices

Liberal Groups, Democratic Members of Congress and Organic Food Industry Present President Obama with Demands for New Food Industry Labeling Regulations

New Regulations, If Adopted, Would Raise Prices on Healthy Food, Think-Tank Says

“Mandatory labeling of GM foods fails every justification for requiring them: scientific, economic, legal, and most of all, common sense,” says risk expert Jeff Stier. “[This is] for the sole benefit of those seeking the labels.”

New York, NY – Four U.S. lawmakers and 200 organizations, many with a financial stake in the outcome, today delivered a letter to President Obama demanding new federal labeling regulations on food products with genetically-modified ingredients.

To follow is a statement in response by New York City-based Jeff Stier, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division:

Similar measures have been defeated directly by voters in crunchy states like California and Washington for good reason.

Mandatory labeling of GM foods fails every justification for requiring them: scientific, economic, legal, and most of all, common sense.

Genetically modified foods, already consumed widely by American consumers, haven’t made anyone sick. Further, requiring labels would add all sorts of expenses that will make healthy foods more expensive.

Organic food companies, or any company, for that matter, are welcome to label their products as “GM free,” and many do. But mandatory labeling of safe products represents a classic case of rent-seeking; this is an effort to assert political influence at the expense of consumers and responsible farmers for the sole benefit of those seeking the labels.

If consumers wish to purchase GM-free foods, they can buy products labeled as such. Consumers already do have a right to know.

Numerous liberal organizations signed the letter, including Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth U.S., the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and the Environmental Working Group. Free-market and middle-of-the road groups do not appear to be represented.

Participating companies included Ben and Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, Amy’s Kitchen, Eden Foods, Odin Brewing and others.

Members of Congress participating in the demand for new regulations were U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH) and U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME).

A copy of the letter and signers can be found here.

A Reuters article about the group’s demands can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Is Food Political?

Celebrity Chef Tom Colicchio and Left-Wing Interest Groups are Making It So with “Sham Consensus” Food Policy Scorecard

New York, NY – Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and Director of its Risk Analysis Division, has issued a statement in response to the new “National Food Policy Scorecard” announced this week by the activist group Food Policy Action, supported by celebrity chief Tom Colicchio and consisting of organizations associated with the left:

“This scorecard is a sham. It does not, as Food Policy Action claims, “reflect the consensus of top food policy experts.” Rather, it represents the narrow views of a select group of some of the nation’s most ideologically-divisive activists.

“The Scorecard’s judges represent the far-left Environmental Working Group; the food police group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest; and even the “chief lobbyist” of a labor union. The one “expert” in the group who comes from the food industry is Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farm, who regularly funds left-wing activist campaigns and stands to directly benefit from government programs that steer resources toward organic food.

“Members of Food Policy Action’s leadership advocate for policies that would increase the cost of foods and beverages through regressive taxes, eliminate certain food choices, and have the unintended consequence of causing people to eat fewer fruits and vegetables by unnecessarily scaring us about the safety of traditionally-grown agriculture.

“If I brought together my colleagues from other think-tanks who are aligned with my point of view, we’d market our scorecard as reflecting a consensus of top free-market food policy experts. We wouldn’t try to pass it off as a view that “reflects the consensus of top food policy experts” as Food Policy Action did – unless we brought in other folks and genuinely offered a bona fide consensus.”

Washington Post reporter Tim Carman described the “National Food Policy Scorecard” in a December 11 Post story beginning:

“On Tuesday, a national nonprofit group supported by celebrity chef Tom Colicchio announced that 87 members of Congress scored a perfect 100 on the 2013 National Food Policy Scorecard, which tracked lawmakers on 19 votes in the U.S. House and Senate during the most recent session.
“Of those 87 members of Congress, only one was a Republican, noted Ken Cook, board chairman for Food Policy Action, which tabulated the scores for the second year in a row…

“…All 38 House and Senate members with the lowest scores — zero — were Republicans, the Food Policy Action chairman noted. They included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). Incidentally, as speaker, Boehner voted on only two of the 13 House bills or amendments that were considered for the scorecard; senators were scored on just six votes.

“Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, said there’s a good reason for Republican lawmakers’ performance on the scorecard. “It does not, as FPA claims, ‘reflect the consensus of top food policy experts,’?” he said. “Rather, it represents the narrow views of a select group of some of the nation’s most ideologically divisive activists.”

“Stier called the scorecard a “sham,” saying it has all the validity of an “NRA scorecard on gun ownership. But they’re playing it off as otherwise, which I think is misleading.””

The rest of the Washington Post story can be read here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Food Companies Secretly Funnel Money to Block GMO Labeling

Natural News reports that a secret list of food companies giving money to fund opposition to require GMO labeling has been found. Below is the list of companies.

The companies that funneled money into the GMA’s money laundering slush fund are:

Abbott Nutrition
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bruce Foods Corp.
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
Bush Brothers & Co.
Campbell Soup Co.
Cargill Inc.
Clement Pappas & Co. Inc.
The Clorox Co. (owner of Burt’s Bees brand)
The Coca-Cola Co. (owner of Odwalla)
ConAgra Foods
Dean Foods Co. (owner of Horizon milk)
Del Monte Foods Co.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
General Mills, Inc. (owned of Larabar)
The Hershey Co.
The Hillshire Brands Co.
Hormel Foods Corp.
The J.M. Smucker Co.
Kellogg Co. (owner of Pop-Tarts)
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCormick & Co., Inc
Mondelez Global, LLC.
Moody Dunbar, Inc.
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc. (owner of Naked Juice)
Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC.
Rich Products Corp.
Shearer’s Foods, Inc.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co.
Welch Foods, Inc.

Share

Hungry Bears

In a way I sort of chuckled yesterday when I read a short news story from a Maine NBC television affiliate, WCSH6 out of Portland, about hungry bears coming out of hibernation. Specifically I got a kick out of this statement:

Police on Tuesday advised residents of one Rumford neighborhood to take in their bird feeders, gas grills and garbage cans after a black bear was spotted wandering around. Police tell the Sun Journal that once the food sources are removed, the bears will return to the woods.

I mean really? The bears will return to the woods? Might I ask why they came out of the woods to begin with? Isn’t it because during this time of the year there is so little natural food, it drives them out of the woods in search for human assistance?

While it is good advice to do what you can to “bear proof” your home and property, the notion that doing so will send the bears back to the woods is more than a bit misleading. The bears will return to the woods as soon as they have natural food to eat; that is providing people don’t continue to feed the bears.

Share

Americans Don’t Eat Their Pets, Do They? Would They? GASP!

horseburger

There are many things over many years that have driven people, Americans included, to decide what is and isn’t acceptable table fare. Take horse meat for instance. No, seriously! Take horse meat, form into patties and flavor with your favorite herbs and spices. Heat barbecue grill to around 400 to start, etc.

Lately, the outrage has been that horse meat was found in meats not labeled as having horse meat in it. GASP!….. Went the cries from all over. Could this have been a case of what they didn’t know wouldn’t have hurt them?

Much of what we decide not to eat has been drummed into our brains as unacceptable, i.e. horse meat, dog meat, snake, certain parts of animals, etc. And much of the aversion comes from people who really would find it a difficult task to eat their best friends, i.e. their pets.

In the UK, after the outrage of finding horse meat in our food chain, some restaurants have begun selling horse meat burgers and they seem to be a big hit.

Eating horse meat shouldn’t be confused with eating parts of a horse’s ass, which there are enough of those to go around to feed an army for several years.

Share