Category Archives: Environment

Despite Irrefutable Evidence of TOXICITY and DEATH, Monsanto’s EPA Friends RAISE Allowable Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) Levels

men are from mars women are from venus politicians are from uranus

Great news!  You no longer have to worry about excessive levels of glyphosate, the toxic chemical found in Monsanto’s Round-up pesticide, in your food or in the feed that livestock consumes.Why not?  Well, the Environmental Deception Protection Agency has looked over the situation, and in their infinite wisdom, raised the safety threshold of glyphosate that is allowed to be in consumable goods.

OpEd

By Daisy Luther
Intellihub.com

June 19, 2013

The EPA’s change of heart means that the the allowed glyphosate level in animal feed will rise to 100 parts per million (ppm) and 40 ppm in oilseed crops. Thankfully, there’s no need for us to worry because they’ve assured us that the new allowable levels are only “minimally toxic” to humans.

The EPA is the agency that is charged with protecting the air we breathe, the soil in which we grow our food and the water that we drink. Unfortunately the only responsibility they seem to take seriously is their commitment to furthering the agendas of big business.  This decision to allow more Roundup to drench the food supply comes immediately after two major, peer reviewed studies have proven that glyphosate is deadly.

The first study found that glyphosate increases the breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.

An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.

The study, titled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,” compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as “low and environmentally relevant concentrations.”

Another study found that consumption of glyphosate causes intestinal and gut damage, which opens the door to numerous human diseases, such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

However, another classification of allergy-type food is emerging and getting recognized for adverse effects on the human intestinal tract and gut. Those foods are genetically modified organisms known as GMOs or GEs. There is scientific research indicating intestinal damage from GMO food and the article “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Disease” discusses how the inordinate amount of pesticides sprayed on GMOs leaves residues in GMO crops that, in turn, are being traced to modern diseases.  (source)

The Organic Consumers Association is very concerned.  They are behind a petition to lobby the EPA to lower the allowable glyphosate levels instead of raising them. (Find it HERE)  The OCA cites numerous reasons why the EPA’s current move is a deadly mistake:

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world.  According to the EPA, at least 208 million tons of Roundup were sprayed on GE crops, lawns and roadsides in the years 2006 and 2007. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used just six years ago.

2009 study found that Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually on their lawns and gardens. It’s safe to assume all these number are much higher now. Why? Because GE crops are now being invaded by new strains of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” requiring higher and higher doses of poison.

Beyond Pesticides has assembled extensive documentation of past research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes.

Glyphosate also endangers the environment, destroys soil and plants, and is linked to a host of health hazards. The EPA’s decision to increase the allowed residue limits of glyphosate is out of date, dangerous to the health of people and the environment and scientifically unsupportable. (source)

 

So why would the EPA make this ruling?

Because instead of being an unbiased agency looking out for public interest, they are merely puppets for the biotech industry.  They spread disinformation from beneath a cloak of benevolence and authority.  They use the trust that people have put in them to deceive and manipulate the public in favor of big business.

Here are some examples of their incestuous partnerships:

The EPA has been accused of covering up crimes committed by public health enemy #1, Monsanto, as well as Dow Chemicals.  The EPA’s investigation proved that Monsanto knowingly tainted Lysol (used by moms everywhere to sanitize babies’ toys) with dioxin.  However, no criminal charges have been forthcoming as of this publication.

monsanto protection act plant organic gardenThe EPA also quietly closed an investigation of Monsanto’s twisted cover-up in the Nitro, West Virginia herbicide plant accident that exposed hundreds of workers to deadly carcinogen dioxin, which can still be found in nearby streams and lakes. Despite the fact that this investigation simply disappeared, Monsanto agreed in February to pay $93 million dollars to residents of Nitro in order to settle a class action lawsuit.

The EPA has refused to ban a pesticide made by Dow Chemicals, the controversial 2,4-D, the same substance used in Agent Orange. This pesticide will be used on corn crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the toxin.  Agent Orange causes cancer, hormone disruption, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity and will be soon be coming to a corn field near you.

The EPA has refused a petition to ban BPA in industry, citing a lack of scientific evidence of the negative effects of the chemical. BPA is commonly found tainting canned goods, especially soup, and bottled water that has been exposed to heat. (Author’s note:  It would probably be very expensive for industry to have to replace all those containers with BPA-free cans and bottles.) (source)

The EPA pulled an identical sleight of hand when radiation from the Fukushima disaster began to reach the United States in 2011.  They raised the acceptable levels of radiation, stopped measuring it, and even tried to convince us that a little radiation was actually good for us:

The EPA is right on top of things with their response, of course. First, they promptly closed down 8 of 18 radiation measuring stations in the hardest hit area, California.  Then, to further calm the good people of the nation, the EPA magically changed the numbers.  They’ve raised the amount of radiation that we can safely absorb and ingest.  It wouldn’t do for the large factory farms to be unable to sell their tainted produce or for the huge dairies to be stuck with all that radioactive milk.

The radiation in our food supply is of so little concern to the EPA that they’ve actually begun to tell us that a little bit of radiation is good for us. According to a report citing the EPA, a bit of radiation can prevent cancer, instead of causing it.

Since our minds can be at ease now, the EPA has decided that they are no longer planning to monitor the radiation levels in our food supply.  They will return to their previous practice of only monitoring random samples every three months.  Yep.  Really.  The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is no longer monitoring radiation levels in our food and water supplies as of April 14th.  That will definitely keep them from getting those inconveniently high readings that might affect Big Agri’s prosperity.  (source)

The government’s consumer protection agencies are hopelessly corrupted.  The FDA, the EPA, and the USDA are all servants of Big Food, Big Pharma and Big Agri.  We are on our own.  The public outcry will be muffled in the mainstream media because, well, Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Agri own them too – you need only look at the advertisers to see this.

Therefore, we have to resort to other means to spread the word. We have to be so loud and so adamant that even the sleepiest individual will have no option but to see what is going on.  So, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to “out” the EPA for this disastrous decision.

  • Share information via social media
  • Protest publicly
  • Sign the petition mentioned above and persuade everyone you know to sign it too
  • Contact the EPA directly and let them know your thoughts on this matter (please be civil)
  • Here’s the phone number for the office of the EPA’s administrator – give him a call:  (202) 564-4711
  • Write letters to the editor of all of your local publications
  • Make comments on message boards for the mainstream media (they’ll get deleted but a few people might read them first)
  • Don’t purchase processed foods or any foods that may contain GMOs, including factory farmed meats.  The animals are given GMO feed throughout the course of their entire lives

Please understand, the system is irrevocably corrupted. Only by shedding light on this corruption can we make a change.  People are being lulled into compliance, all the while, feeling that there are measures in place to ensure that what they consume from the grocery store is not poison.

Food safety should not be in the hands of the highest bidder.

Facebooktwitterrss

U.S. tax dollars promote Monsanto’s GMO crops overseas

monsanto GMO FDA Food Safety

U.S. tax dollars promote Monsanto’s GMO crops overseas

By Carey Gillam

Tue May 14, 2013 9:05am EDT

(Reuters) – U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for overseas lobbying that promotes controversial biotech crops developed by U.S.-based Monsanto Co and other seed makers, a report issued on Tuesday said.

A review of 926 diplomatic cables of correspondence to and from the U.S. State Department and embassies in more than 100 countries found that State Department officials actively promoted the commercialization of specific biotech seeds, according to the report issued by Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer protection group.

The officials tried to quash public criticism of particular companies and facilitated negotiations between foreign governments and seed companies such as Monsanto over issues like patents and intellectual property, the report said.

The cables show U.S. diplomats supporting Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, in foreign countries even after it paid $1.5 million in fines after being charged with bribing an Indonesian official and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 2005.

One 2009 cable shows the embassy in Spain seeking “high-level U.S. government intervention” at the “urgent request” of Monsanto to combat biotech crop opponents there, according to the Food & Water Watch report.

The report covered cables from 2005-2009 that were released by Wikileaks in 2010 as part of a much larger release by Wikileaks of a range of diplomatic cables it obtained.

Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said Monsanto believes it is critical to maintain an open dialogue with government authorities and trade groups in other countries.

“We remain committed to sharing information so that individuals can better understand our business and our commitments to support farmers throughout the world as they work to meet the agriculture demands of our world’s growing population,” he said.

State Department officials had no immediate comment when contacted about the report.

monsanto GMO FDA Food SafetyFood & Water Watch said the cables it examined provide a detailed account of how far the State Department goes to support and promote the interests of the agricultural biotech industry, which has had a hard time gaining acceptance in many foreign markets.

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

But U.S. officials, Monsanto and many other companies and industry experts routinely say that biotech crops are needed around the world to increase global food production as population expands. They maintain that the crops are safe and make farming easier and more environmentally sustainable.

PROMOTION THROUGH PAMPHLETS, DVDs?

The cables show that State Department officials directed embassies to “troubleshoot problematic legislation” that might hinder biotech crop development and to “encourage the development and commercialization of ag-biotech products”.

The State Department also produced pamphlets in Slovenia promoting biotech crops, sent pro-biotech DVDs to high schools in Hong Kong and helped bring foreign officials and media from 17 countries to the United States to promote biotech agriculture, Food & Water Watch said.

Genetically altered crops are widely used in the United States. Crops spliced with DNA from other species are designed to resist pests and tolerate chemical applications, and since their introduction in the mid 1990s have come to dominate millions of acres of U.S. farmland.

The biotech crops are controversial with some groups and in many countries because some studies have shown harmful health impacts for humans and animals, and the crops have been associated with some environmental problems.

They also generally are more expensive than conventional crops, and the biotech seed developers patent the high-tech seeds so farmers using them have to buy new seed every season, a factor that makes them unappealing in some developing nations.

Many countries ban planting of biotech crops or have strict labeling requirements.

“It’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their (the biotech seed industry’s) goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of nonprofit organization Organic Consumers Association.

“American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/us-usa-gmo-report-idUSBRE94D0IL20130514

Facebooktwitterrss

Dr. Oz Viciously Attacks Organic Foods and Farmers Markets| Predictable and Lame

sick food leads to sick people

It is completely predictable, but also tragic. Millions have come to love and trust him and now he begins selling out to corporate interests. It’s not as though I didn’t expect it. I’ve seen so many celebrities go down the same woeful path.

On the other hand, maybe he’s actually being honest? I mean, there’s no real reason to think that just because corn is genetically modified to produce it’s own insecticide that causes bugs stomachs to EXPLODE, that it would also effect human health in any way. Is there? I mean really…

Where’s the logic in considering the possibility that if we put chemicals on our food as it grows that are so powerful, potent, and toxic that the people spraying it require full body suits to protect them as they spray, that it might also be bad to eat the food that had the toxic spray on it?

None. No logic. You don’t need logic. Don’t question your corporate gods. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be acting in your best interest.

I’ve been reading about how commercial dairy farmers are feeding their cows old cereal and cake sprinkles instead of grass, hay and grain to save money. That shouldn’t cause any decrease in the quality of milk, though, so don’t you worry about it. Just remember that grass fed dairy cows from small farms are evil and their milk is a constant danger to all mankind.

And Monsanto is killing off the bee population at an alarming rate. If honey bees die it would mean that very little food would be pollinated or propagate, but it’s OK because who needs nature? We can produce all the grain we need in a laboratory or something, right? Reminds me of the Year 2525…

I can understand telling people, “If you can’t afford organic, then make the best choices you can without eating organic. Here are some helpful hints…” But to throw organic and just good farming practices under the buss is misleading and inappropriate.

Don’t even get me started on promoting vaccines. I mean, why in the world would it be bad to promote injecting mercury into your baby? I see no problem with that… especially when a vaccine connected with Bill Gates’ foundation apparently paralyzed tens of thousands of children injected in India.

So if you detect a tone of sarcasm in the commentary above, it’s because I think that it is ridiculously nonsensical that anyone would blindly follow the status quo when it comes to food or medicine in this country, let alone someone as educated as Dr. Oz. He knows better.

Dr. Oz Viciously Attacks Organic Foods and Farmers Markets

Dr. Oz viciously attacks organic foods and farmers markets, pushes feedlot beef, urges clueless consumers to eat more pesticides and GMO.

Dr. Oz has finally done it: He has sold out to Big Ag by declaring organic foods to be “elitist,” “snooty” and no better than conventional foods. The man who once urged Americans to eat organic has sold his soul to the criminally-run food giants in a mind-blowing editorial piece recently published in TIME Magazine.

Look for Dr. Oz to promote GMOs next, as cozying up to Monsanto probably won’t be too far behind. The man is already on the record pushing vaccines, talking about how good they are for “public health” while failing to mention that vaccines admittedly contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and MSG.

He’s also the same guy who was behind the “RealAge” internet scheme that recruited people into a promotional network where they were barraged by drug-pushing ads from Big Pharma. Dr. Oz also owned a huge number of option shares in a vaccine technology company.

In his TIME Magazine editorial piece, Dr. Oz declares organic foods to be “elitist” and appropriate only for “the 1%.” This clever bit of propaganda is designed to try to align conventional foods (i.e. pesticide ridden GMO foods) with the “99%” by making them sound more populist. As if, the “People’s food” is pesticides and GMOs, you see.

Does the man have no shame? Is there any corporate poison he won’t promote to his viewers?

Oz declares organic food is “not democratic”

One third of honey bee colonies died last winter thanks monsanto“Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic,” Dr. Oz declares, as if choosing organic is somehow an affront to America. “You don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily,” he says. In other words, keep sucking down more GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and chemicals, and you’ll be a good little American food slave. Buying organic is anti-American, you’re being told.

Dr. Oz’s message, of course, has become indistinguishable from that of Monsanto. It’s all the same deception: You don’t need clean, non-GMO food to be healthy. Keep eating all the conventional crap that poisons you with synthetic chemicals, and you’ll be just fine! How about some GMO Corn Flakes for breakfast, even!

Dr. Oz also attacks farmers markets, because he apparently thinks buying local food is a silly waste of time. “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case,” he somehow says with a straight face. Oh really? There’s no difference between fresh, locally-grown food versus frozen, corporate-produced food trucked in from a thousand miles away? The ignorance of this guy is just flat-out stunning. Does he know nothing about where food comes from and how it is produced?

Dr. Oz: Eat more feedlot beef.

In an even more grotesque sellout to factory foods, Dr. Oz pushes feedlot beef, saying, “Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

This is just a flat-out lie, of course. There’s a huge difference nutritionally between free-range beef and feedlot beef. Feedlot beef, for starters, is raised on genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, while free-range beef has been consistently found to be higher in omega-3 fatty acids. And that doesn’t even cover the ethical and environmental differences. In promoting feedlot beef, Dr. Oz positions himself squarely against the environment while also pushing animal cruelty.

Dr Oz has chosen a side, and it’s the side of corporate biotech chemical agriculture

Above all, with this piece Dr. Oz has now clearly chosen a side in the realm of food. Betraying his own viewers and readers, he has chosen to jump in bed with Big Ag, Monsanto, chemical pesticide producers, processed food companies and feedlot cattle factories.

As is now self-evident, Dr. Oz has aligned himself AGAINST everything the organic movement stands for: Honest food, local food, free-range meat, avoidance of GMOs, avoidance of synthetic chemicals and so on. His TIME Magazine piece is an insult to all the good people in America who simply want honest food produced without cruelty or chemicals. Dr. Oz calls those people “snooty” and “elitists.”

And what does that make him? Oh, now he’s the leader of the “populist poison foods movement” that tries to convince the American masses to eat more GMO, more pesticides, more store-bought foods and more feedlot beef, chicken and pork. The food industry must love this guy! (Watch for new sponsorship contracts to fill his pockets with cash right around the corner…)

Dr. Oz makes himself irrelevant to the discussion on food

By joining forces with Monsanto, Bayer and Big Ag, Dr. Oz has now taken a position squarely against organic foods, against farmer’s markets, against free-range animals and against non-GMO.

It begs the question: Why pay any attention to Dr. Oz at all anymore? He’s just parroting the same corporate lies and deceptions we can just as easily get from the New York Times, or the USDA, or Monsanto itself. By attacking organics, Dr. Oz has just made himself irrelevant to thinking people everywhere.

He’s got nothing to say anymore, and more importantly Dr. Oz no longer has any credibility whatsoever. He’s just committed professional suicide. I can’t wait to hear what Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association has to say about Dr. Oz’s comments.

Because Oz has sold out to the GMO-producing, chemical-producing, animal cruelty feedlot sectors of the corrupt food industry, watch for the mainstream media to keep propping up Dr. Oz and attempt to make him a puppet of “authority” on all things related to food and health. Heck, why not make the guy Surgeon General and enact a law population control law that mandates the consumption of feedlot Soylent Green?

Dr. Oz’s purported audience is a sham, by the way. Natural News has a far larger audience than Dr. Oz, especially when you count the cumulative IQ points of our respective followers. While the low-IQ zombified consumers may still think Dr. Oz has something resembling credibility, all the in-the-know organic food consumers and activists are fully aware of who is on their side and who isn’t. Dr. Oz clearly isn’t. His audience exists only as a fabrication of persistent corporate promotion.

Without the corporate backing, Dr. Oz is a nobody.

Spread the word, folks: Dr. Oz is a sellout. Share this story and warn your friends.

Story photo by David Berkowitz

Official response from the Cornucopia Institute

Here’s the response from Cornucopia on the TIME Magazine “sellout” piece by Dr. Oz.

The original TIME cover story was published on 12/3/2012 and is entitled “What to Eat Now” by Dr. Mehmet Oz. It’s available at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2129811,00.html

The full story is available to Time subscribers only. Excerpts from the article, with Cornucopia’s responses:

Dr. Oz: “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case.”

sick food leads to sick peopleCornucopia response: Dr. Oz compares conventional and organic foods throughout the article by focusing exclusively on the differences between a handful of nutrients. This is exactly what the agrochemical and conventional farming industries, and their front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, would like the American public to focus on. Just two months ago, Dr. Oz told the viewers of his syndicated television show to buy organic vegetables to avoid pesticide residues. Now, in his copywritten Time story, the word “pesticide” or “agricultural chemical” is never mentioned.

Dr. Oz: “Dispelling these myths — that boutique foods are good, supermarket foods are suspect and you have to spend a lot to eat well — is critical to improving our nation’s health. Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic.”

Cornucopia response: What can be more democratic than consumers voting with their food dollars to support organic farmers who protect our environment and our health by eschewing harmful and polluting agrochemicals?

Even if there were no direct benefit to our families (plenty of published scientific research indicates there is), when we choose organic food we are protecting farmers and farmworkers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many farmers, farmworkers and their children have elevated levels of certain cancers and chronic diseases.

Dr. Oz: “The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all things small-batch, local-farm and organic — all with premium price tags. But let’s be clear: you don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily.”

Cornucopia response: Organic foods are not for the “1%.” Organic foods are for everybody, and are accessible and affordable to most families who prioritize their expenses. Many organic consumers forgo other “luxuries,” whether it be iPhones, vacations, new cars — all of which are advertised in the same Time magazine where Dr. Oz’s article appears — in order to be able to afford organic foods to protect their family’s health. These decisions should be applauded, not turned into a character flaw.

Dr. Oz: “After several years of research and experience, I have come to an encouraging conclusion: the American food supply is abundant, nutritionally sound, affordable and, with a few simple considerations, comparable to the most elite organic diets. Save the cash; the 99% diet can be good for you.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s research apparently missed the countless studies showing that organic foods are nutritionally superior, lower in pesticide residues, lower in antibiotic-resistant pathogen contamination, etc. In addition to being published in peer-reviewed journals, testing by independent sources such as Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) and government agencies such as the USDA corroborate these findings.

Dr. Oz: “I consider it a public-health service to the consumer who has to feed a family of five or the person who wants to make all the right choices and instead is alienated and dejected because the marketing of healthy foods too often blurs into elitism, with all the expense and culinary affectation that implies.”

Cornucopia response: The added expense of buying organic foods is an investment in health. In the interest of public health, Dr. Oz should have mentioned the pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic preservatives, artificial dyes and sweeteners, and other harmful inputs used in conventional farming and food production. Comparing nutrients is just one aspect of a cost-benefit analysis. Dr. Oz owes his loyal fans, who respect his judgment, a more thoughtful and nuanced analysis.

Dr. Oz: “There’s no question that free-range chickens and grass-fed, pasture-dwelling cows lead happier — if not appreciably longer — lives than animals raised on factory farms. They are also kept free of hormones and antibiotics and are less likely to carry communicable bacteria like E. coli, which are common on crowded feedlots. If these things are important to you and you have the money to spend, then by all means opt for pricier organic meats.”

Cornucopia response: Yes, Dr. Oz, avoiding hormones and antibiotics is important to us, and it should be to you, too.

However, just because a package says “free range” or “grass-fed” does not mean it is certified organic, and therefore is not certified to be produced without some of the most dangerous and objectionable drugs. Concerned consumers should go out of their way to seek out the organic seal.

Dr. Oz: “But for the most part, it’s O.K. to skip the meat boutiques and the high-end butchers. Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s statement is not backed by scientific data, which consistently shows lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and higher levels of beneficial omega-3 fats and vitamins in grass-fed beef compared with feedlot beef.

Dr. Oz: “Let’s also take a moment to celebrate the tuna-salad sandwich, which is to lunch what the ’57 Chevy is to cars–basic and brilliant.”

Cornucopia response: It is unconscionable that Dr. Oz touts the nutritional benefits of canned tuna, without mentioning the FDA and EPA warnings concerning methylmercury contamination. The FDA and EPA recommend that women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children limit their consumption of canned light tuna to no more than 12 ounces per week, and their consumption of canned albacore tuna to no more than 6 ounces per week.

Dr. Oz: “Preserves and jams without added sugar can be great sources of dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium.”

Cornucopia response: Preserves and jams without added sugar often contain added artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, which has been linked in studies to cancer and neurological damage. Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are banned in organic products.

Dr. Oz: “We know more about the connection between food and health than ever before — down to the molecular level, actually. This has provided us the curious luxury of being fussy, even snooty, about what we eat, considering some foods, well, below our station. That’s silly. Food isn’t about cachet. It’s about nourishment, pleasure and the profound well-being that comes from the way meals draw us together.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz spends the entire article attempting to convince the American public that there are few, if any, differences between conventional and organic foods. Yet in his closing paragraphs he tacitly acknowledges that we “know more about … food and health than ever before – down to the molecular level.” This contradicts his earlier statements that there are no differences.

Most people who buy organic foods do so not because they are “snooty,” as Dr. Oz suggests, but because they seek to protect themselves and their families from the widely recognized harmful effects of pesticides and other agrichemicals.

Source:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/11/organic-food-justice-for-the-99/

http://worldtruth.tv/dr-oz-viciously-attacks-organic-foods-and-farmers-markets/

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!