Thursday, May 31, 2012

FRANKENPHONY RENT-A-PROTESTS - NOT FROM OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT...YOU GUESSED IT!

Monsanto Admittedly Influences Colorado GMO Ban, Launches Phony ‘GMO Co-Existence’ Protests

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
December 21, 2011

Bloated biotech giant Monsanto has admitted to using their influence to block an initiative introduced by Boulder, Colorado to ban the growing of genetically modified crops on county soil. While county officials and farmers claimed that Monsanto influence had nothing to do with the blocking of the health conscious legislation, the company itself has admitted to being involved. Furthermore, Monsanto may have actually setup phony ‘GMO co-existence’ protests in order to voice phony public support against the bill. After the admitted involvement of Monsanto and the curious protests, the county commissioners changed their formerly anti-GMO tune.

Instead of banning GMO crops, the Boulder County commissioners voted unanimously on Tuesday to allow for the growing of some GMO crops on county-owned open land.

Pro-Monsanto Farmers Deny Admitted Monsanto Involvement, Pushed for GMO Crops

Paul Schlagel was one of the farmers who originally pushed for GMO sugar beets in Boulder, Colorado. That year Schlagel wrote a letter to the Parks and Open Space Department, asking for permission to plant crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that has been known to cause cancer and pollute local water supplies. Citing claims fabricated by Monsanto that have proven to be false in the past such as a decrease in pesticide use, Schlagel urged country officials to allow for the planting of GMO crops.

Around this time, Monsanto was launching a major initiative to capture the sugar beet market, with 95% of sugar beets ultimately becoming Roundup Ready by the year 2009. Monsanto got their wish, thanks to pro-Monsanto farmers like Schlagel, and now Schlagel is denying any involvement with Monsanto or other biotech corporations in regards to the blocked GMO ban despite Monsanto actually admitting to influencing the decision.

Schlagel even responds to the accusations that Monsanto voiced by not only denying the claims, but also by issuing a strong response that would seem quite anti-Monsanto if you did not know the full story. ”Monsanto doesn’t own me,” Schlagel said in a statement to the press. Meanwhile, Thomas Helscher, the company’s director of corporate affairs, has stated their direct involvement through e-mail reported on by the Boulder, Colorado press.

“Monsanto is a stakeholder in these proceedings as our company name and our innovations have been repeatedly named in the public discussions, and the safety and benefits of those innovations has been questioned,” wrote Helscher. Therefore, we submitted official comments to the Commissioners and also testified at the Dec. 8 hearing. We also have answered questions asked of us by our Boulder County farmer customers during this public and open process.”

Is Monsanto Funding Phony ‘GMO Co-Existence Protests’?

As anti-GMO activists rage over the event, many informed Colorado individuals are questioning the peculiar ‘GMO co-existence’ protests that sprung up in Boulder, Colorado. Wearing hats with the slogan FAIR and parading around support for Monsanto, the group was well-organized and seemed to appear out of thin air. Even more telling is the fact that these individuals were not a result of a grassroots movement that any of the citizens were aware of, and seemed to have their agenda organized before hitting the streets in an orderly fashion.

Legitimate anti-GMO grassroots protests have also been ongoing in Boulder, voicing opposition against food tyrant Monsanto and Boulder officials. It is only a matter of time until revealing information regarding Monsanto’s full involvement is leaked to the media. Whether or not they will cover it is in question, but we sure will.

CAN THE DOCTOR BE ORDERING GMO LABELS???

Even the American Medical Association (AMA) May Back Labeling of GMOs

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
May 31, 2012
Despite the facade put in place by Monsanto that virtually all mainstream medical organizations believe there is no difference between traditional and genetically modified organisms, even the American Medical Association (AMA) may soon support the labeling of GMOs through federal legislation or regulation. In an attempt to accelerate the process towards the direct labeling of GMOs, the Indiana State Medical Association and Illinois State Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the AMA on the subject. The resolutions, which stem from these prominent mainstream entities, urge the AMA to back labeling initiatives.

The AMA will reportedly be considering the proposals on June 17th, during its annual meeting. What’s more, the long list of individuals and organizations behind the push for labeling does not stop there. The resolutions submitted to the AMA are backed by a multitude of researchers and physicians, including Dr. Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist and past vice-chair of the Council on Responsible Genetics. In response to the secretive nature of GMOs and the subsequent lack of real knowledge on their wide scale effects, Dr. Herbert stated:

“Tracking the millions of people with vulnerable immune systems and their reaction to novel proteins and virus fragments in genetically engineered food is impossible without food labeling.”

Labeling of GMOs Gains Momentum

In other words, since GMOs are currently incognito in the food supply and unsuspecting consumers are constantly consuming them, it can be very difficult to tie them directly to a condition. For example, a large incidence of cancer may have erupted as a result of GMO consumption, and it may be nearly impossible to isolate the incidents and conclusively link GMOs to the onset of the disease. This is one reason why it is extremely challenging to bring down Monsanto with a lawsuit, as the company could say — due to the mislabeling and allowance of GMOs into the food supply — that it is impossible to prove GMOs were directly responsible.

What we do know, however, is that GMOs have been linked to a number of problems for both humans and the environment. Insects like rootworms are continually becoming more and more resistant to heavy pesticide usage on GMO crops, prompting farmers to douse the crops in even more brain damage-linked pesticides. Not only does this pose a serious threat to human health, but the environment as well. Through the creation of ‘mutated’ bugs that threaten farmland, Monsanto’s creations are changing the very way that the insects respond to chemical pesticides. As a result, warnings by the EPA and scientific groups have begun surfacing.

Even mainstream medical groups are coming out of the woodwork to lend support to the labeling of GMOs. It’s time that the government began responding appropriately to the overwhelming amount of support towards the many labeling campaigns and initiatives currently being launched around the globe.
Additional sources:
American Medical Association
Truth In Labeling Coalition

Explore More:

THANK THE FDA: ORGANIC FOOD CAVES TO SYNTHETIC CARRAGEENAN, INOSITOL & CHOLINE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 31, 2012
4:29 PM

CONTACT: Cornucopia Institute

Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

Wildfires Rage at New Mexican Organic Meetings

Farmers, Consumers and Public Interest Groups Square off Against Corporate Interests

WASHINGTON - May 31 - Passions flared at the semiannual meeting of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), last week in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as the federal advisory panel approved a number of synthetic ingredients for use in organics, over the objection of the majority of industry participants.
The meeting came on the heels of the release of a report by an organic industry watchdog, The Cornucopia Institute, outlining corrupt practices in the constitution of the board and their past approval processes. The NOSB, created by Congress, is legally mandated to ensure that no substances are allowed in organic foods that pose a threat to human health or the environment.
The most controversial material approved at the meeting was carrageenan, a stabilizer and thickener synthesized from seaweed. Carrageenan has been shown to trigger gastrointestinal inflammation, which is known to cause serious intestinal disease, including cancer. "Degraded carrageenan," which is present in all food-grade carrageenan, is classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of Science in United States.
"If there was ever a poster child for an ingredient that has no business being in organic food, or any food for that matter, it's carrageenan," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.
In their report, The Organic Watergate, issued earlier in May, Cornucopia documented what they called "systemic corruption" at the USDA that resulted in what was characterized as biased technical reviews and approvals of synthetics for use in organics. Their findings illustrated that the materials were being evaluated by food scientists working directly for corporate agribusiness and then approved by a body (the NOSB) illegally stacked with agribusiness representatives.
"The beauty of the law that was passed by Congress, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), was that the majority of 15 NOSB seats were reserved for farmers, consumer advocates, environmentalists and others public interest representatives as a balance to corporate power," said Mark Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute’s Codirector. "The law has been ignored and the organic chickens are now coming home to roost—undermining the integrity of the organic label."
"The Organic Trade Association (OTA), an industry lobby group, and its powerful members, can now get approval for virtually anything they want. It has turned the entire regulatory process into a mockery," Kastel added.
The Cornucopia Institute, which is preparing to challenge the inappropriate board composition in federal court, also just filed a formal complaint with the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), Ms. Phyllis Fong, asking her to investigate the organization’s allegations.
In their complaint, they used NOSB member Carmela Beck as an example. Ms. Beck was appointed by USDA Sectary Tom Vilsack to serve on one of the seats reserved for an individual who "owns or operates" an organic farm. Ms. Beck neither owns nor operates an organic farm, but is a full-time employee of a giant privately-owned agribusiness, Driscolls, the largest conventional and organic berry producer in the United States.
"This is a clear-cut violation of OFPA, in which Congress charged the USDA with protecting organic stakeholders and consumers," explained Kastel.
Cornucopia’s letter to the OIG also cited direct conflicts of interest on the board that should have caused certain members to recuse themselves from voting on carrageenan‘s relisting on the National Lis t of approved substances in organics.
Ms. Wendy Fulwider, a full-time employee at the CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley) and a NOSB member, appropriately disclosed a conflict of interest. Organic Valley had sent a representative to publicly lobby the board to approve carrageenan, citing Organic Valley’s use of the material in soymilk, whipping cream and chocolate milk. In addition, NOSB members reported direct contact from Organic Valley’s CEO, who had called them individually to lobby for their vote. And Organic Valley submitted written comments in advance of the meeting advocating that the board vote for the synthetic material.
However, the staff at the USDA’s National Organic Program ruled that Ms. Fulwider’s disclosure did not constitute a conflict of interest that required her to abstain from voting.
"If the direct economic impact of this vote on Organic Valley, and their covert and overt lobbying for carrageenan, does not constitute a conflict of interest, then nothing presented to this board will ever disqualify a member from voting," lamented Cornucopia's Kastel. "The fix is in."
At the meeting, Michael Potter, CEO of Clinton, Michigan based Eden Foods, illustrated that companies do not need to sacrifice foundational organic values in order to compete in the $30+ billion industry. Potter, whose company is a respected and leading producer of diversified organic groceries, pleaded with the NOSB to act as a "gatekeeper" for the authenticity of organic food. He asked the board to employ the "Precautionary Principle" and to “always be certain that what they do is appropriate for organic food.”
Potter, who started his oral testimony by stating for the record that Eden Foods is not a member of the Organic Trade Association, told the board, "Organic food is supposed to be an alternative to industrialized food" and that he objects to "the greenwashing for more, easy, and cheap to produce, quasi-organic food." He then poignantly asked the Board: "Should organic food be better for large corporations, or better for the people?"
After learning about the scientific research pointing to carrageenan’s serious human health impacts, Potter committed to removing carrageenan from the handful of Eden Foods products that currently contain it. This is in stark contrast to other companies, like Dean Foods (Horizon and Silk), Organic Valley, and Dannon (Stonyfield), which all sent representatives to the NOSB meeting to lobby for carrageenan’s approval in organics.
In addition to carrageenan, the board approved synthetic inositol and choline, two nutraceuticals, for use in all infant formula. This was a controversial decision as well, since the FDA only requires that these synthetic nutrients be added to soy-based infant formula.
"These nutrients are found naturally in dairy-based formula and many foods. It's a risky gimmick to add their synthetic version to organic foods, which is the last refuge for parents seeking to avoid chemical additives and give truly natural food to their infants and children," said Cornucopia's Vallaeys.
The Cornucopia Institute has taken the official position that the NOSB, which is not a scientific panel, should leave decisions about required food fortification with synthetic nutrients to the FDA. At last fall’s meeting, the NOSB approved the use of the controversial synthetic ingredients DHA and ARA, patented by Royal DSM/Martek Biosciences Corporation, for use in formula and other organic foods. Neither are recommended or required by the FDA.
"The organic regulations allow any nutrient required by the FDA to be added to organic food. The NOSB should not be listening to lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies and trade groups like the International Formula Council. They should leave scientifically based decisions about the essentiality of synthetic nutrients to the FDA," said Vallaeys.
"The decision to relist carrageenan, and to allow the synthetic nutrients choline and inositol for infant formula, prevailed by one vote," Kastel observed. "There is no doubt that if the board were legally constituted, with truly independent members instead of corporate imposters, the decisions would be radically different and the true values of the organic movement would be upheld."
While The Cornucopia Institute remains bullish on the organic label, it has published a series of studies and scorecards rating organic brands, to address the shortcuts some corporations are applying to organic production. These reports and scorecards empower consumers and wholesale buyers to make informed purchasing decisions. They can be found on the Cornucopia website.
"There is currently no alternative for consumers, who are seeking safe and nutritious food, other than direct, local marketing by farmers,” concluded Kastel. "Despite the corporate take-over of organics, dedicated organic customers are not going to go back to conventional food. There are just a few of the 300 or so synthetic and non-organic ingredients approved for use in organic food that are questionable—and we are going to work like hell to get them out. But in conventional food, there are thousands of highly toxic inputs, and there's no doubt about the danger of many of these compounds."
"The integrity of organic farming and food production," noted Kastel, "is worth caring about."

###

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/05/31-7

GMO LABELS...CALIFORNIA DREAMIN' IS BECOMING A REALITY...

How California Could Force the Rest of the US to Label GMO Foods

—By Tom Philpott

| Thu May. 31, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

A sign at a pro-labeling rally in San Francisco in February. Rainforest Action Network/Flickr

In November, California voters will decide on a ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing ingredients from genetically modified crops. The initiative made it to the ballot after almost 1 million Californians signed a petition in favor of it—nearly double the 504,760 signatures needed under the state's proposition rules. The campaign that organized the push to get the measure on the ballot focused on possible health effects of GMO foods.

This news will not likely be applauded by my friends over at Croplife America, the main trade group of the GM seed/agrichemical industry. The big GMO crops—corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton—are processed into sweeteners, fats, and additives used widely by the food industry. Everything from high fructose corn syrup-sweetened Coke to soybean oil-containing Hellman's mayo would have to bear a label reading something like "Contains GMO ingredients."
That would send a shockwave through the food industry—one that could ultimately be felt on the industrial-scale US farms that have been devoting their land to GMO crops for years, and the companies that profit from selling them patented seeds and matching herbicides. The reason isn't just that California represents an imposing chunk of the US food market. It's also that a food-labeling law that starts in California is unlikely to stay in California.

To see why, look at the case of another practice beloved of US agribusiness: that of stuffing egg-laying hens into cages so tight that they can't turn around.
Back in 2008, California voters mulled a ballot initiative to ban that production method by 2015. The egg industry fought the proposal bitterly—but Proposition Two (as it was known) won anyway, by a margin of nearly two-to-one. Two years later, the California legislature passed a law applying the new rules to all eggs sold in the state—foiling the industry's threat to close shop in California and send in eggs from hens caged in other states.

But the initiative was never really just about California. Its main champion, the Humane Society of the United States, was clear about that from the start. As HSUS's Paul Shapiro told Grist weeks before the 2008 vote, "Nobody can ignore the fact that California is the largest agricultural state in the country and it's often a trend-setting state. We envision national reforms coming from passage of Prop. 2.”

Shapiro's words proved prescient. In July 2011, less than three years after the California initiative's passage, executives from the egg industry's main trade group joined forces with their peers from HSUS to propose national legislation that would essentially make the California rules the law of the land. The legislation hasn't gone anywhere yet, but with the industry vowing to support and not crush it in Congress, the days of stuffing hens in tiny cages seem numbered.

Why did the egg industry crack? Did these hard-boiled execs experience a sudden pang of conscience over the plight of the millions of hens confined in their egg factories? More likely, they were acting in deference to a basic law of capitalism: differentiation costs money. Nearly 38 million people live in California—12 percent of the entire US population, and 17 percent of the US egg market, according to the USDA. It's costly and cumbersome to apply one set of production rules to eggs for California's vast horde of consumers, and another to everyone else.

So the egg industry wants a set of standards that applies nationwide. Similarly, if massive food processors like Kraft and Unilever are forced to label essentially all of their products just for the California market, it likely won't be long before they're pushing for national labeling—or simply just labeling everything for the national market.

It's hard to say how consumers would react to national GMO labeling, but there's evidence that a substantial portion of them might reject GMOs and demand alternatives. A recent national poll by the Mellman Group found that 91 percent of respondents favored GMO labeling, a result that was roughly consistent among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The fact that they want that information suggests that they may be willing to act on it.

If they do, they'll initially find that the only way to avoid GMOs is to buy certified-organic products, which by USDA code can't contain GMOs. As of last year, genetically modified seeds accounted for 94 percent of US soy and three-quarters of corn and cotton (which makes it into the food supply in the form of cottonseed oil, a popular fat for the food industry). A move to labeling would likely create a robust market in non-GMO, conventional versions of those crops, giving large-scale farmers incentive to transition away from GMOs and cutting into the profits of giants like Monsanto, Syngenta, and DuPont. If a substantial percentage of them did, that would be a hard blow to the profit plans of the big agrichemical companies, whose business models are based on constant growth, not shrinkage.

As I've written before, herbicide-tolerant GMO technologies have pushed US farmers to apply ever greater doses of ever-more toxic herbicides. New-generation GM seeds from Monsanto and Dow promise to accelerate that trend. So far, regulatory agencies like USDA and EPA have proven utterly unable to check this slow-motion, GMO-generated gusher of agrichemicals onto our prime farmland and ultimately into the water of millions of people.

Where regulators have failed, California's voters might ultimately make a difference.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/california-gmo-labeling

25 BILLION TONS OF CRAP - BROUGHT TO YOU BY FACTORY FARMS

Factory Farms Produce 100 Times More Waste than U.S. Population

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
May 29, 2012

If you thought you were a major contributor to pollution, just wait until you hear this. Factory farms produce 100 times more waste than every single person in the United States combined. The amount of waste produced by these factories is in such mass quantities that it is virtually impossible to clean up properly. Much of this waste is dumped into the water supply, drastically increasing overall water pollution as well as contributing to the pollution found in drinking water.

Back in 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a decision that affected many factory farms. They stated that any confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), also known as factory farms, “designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner such that the CAFO will discharge” animal waste must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act. The livestock industry ridiculed this notion.

There have been past rulings concerning this issue that forced farmers to have a permit to discharge waste and to have a set plan as to how the waste would be discharged, or they would face civil or criminal penalties. The 2008 ruling went further with the issue, putting even more criteria in place to follow.

A ruling on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the EPA has no right to require CAFOs to apply for permits unless they actually discharge waste. But if a CAFO does in fact discharge waste, the EPA can then require that CAFO to apply for a permit.

Nutrients in animal waste cause something known as algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water and effectively cause a lack of oxygen for aquatic life to survive. These lifeless areas are called “dead zones”. The most notorious of dead zones can be found in the Gulf of Mexico, where it extended a record 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002 and stretched over 7,700 square miles during summer of 2010, and is always fluctuating. Ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen released during waste disposal, can be carried via air over 300 miles before being dumped back onto the ground or into the water, where it causes algal blooms and fish kills.

The past laws set in place forced CAFOs to apply for a permit and create a plan to handle the massive amount of waste the animals would inevitably generate. With this law changing and lowering the standards at which factory farms are run by, CAFO’s will be able to wait until the last minute before they decide to dump the waste. Despite the fact that the EPA will be able to penalize them for such actions, the CAFO’s will already have done the damage to the environment by ridding their land of millions of gallons of manure.

The simple fact is that factory farms are causing problems, and are still being widely used today.

The number of hog farms in the United States has dropped from 650,000 to 71,000 over the past 30 years, however, the number of hogs remains nearly the same.
In 1999, only 2% of hog farms in the U.S. accounted for more than 46% of the total number of hogs, as reported by U.S. Department of Agriculture.
10 total companies produce over 90% of the nation’s poultry.

Additional sources:

AlterNet

NRDC

Source: http://naturalsociety.com/factory-farms-produce-100-times-waste-us-population/#ixzz1wUL4Muzu

HERE'S WHAT AMERICANS EAT

The Average American Diet

averageamericandiet Average American Diet Infographic

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
May 17, 2012

Unfortunately, Americans have some of the worst diets in the world, and everyone else knows it. With the average American consuming 24 lbs of artificial sweeteners, 29 lbs of french fries, and over 600 lbs of dairy per year, the average American is in a state of crisis. The average American diet is heavily responsible for the escalating obesity rates and is ultimately contributing to the development of illness and diseases.

According to the below infographic, the average American consumes about 1 gallon of soda per week, which equates to more than 18 fluid ounces, or 1.5 sodas per day. These sodas are loaded with sugar, with a 12oz can containing 35-45 grams – an amount that exceeds the recommended daily intake of ~15 grams. What’s more, these sugars are typically in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, one of the cheapest, and most health-hazardous forms of sugar that can be used.

Another concerning number in the average American diet is the amount of artificial sweeteners consumed; this includes substances like aspartame, Splenda, Sweet N’ Low, and Equal. None of these artificial sweeteners are healthful, and are even having a negative impact on your health.

One study found that 67% of female rats exposed to aspartame developed tumors roughly the size of golf balls or larger.

Is Splenda safe? This toxic sweetener also has many dangers. Some effects associated with Splenda are shortness of breath, joint pains, eye irritation, swelling of facial muscles, ski breaking out into hives or rashes, and more.

Saccharin, best known as Sweet ‘N Low has been shown to have carcinogenic links. During the 1960′s, studies on rats indicated saccharin was related to bladder cancer, but the FDA has allowed saccharin to remain as a food additive.

Needless to say, there are many more problems associated with the average American diet. While consumption of food shown in weight (as the inforgraphic shows) isn’t the absolute best way to pinpoint the issues with any diet, the numbers do give us a representation and idea of how much we’re eating. If you want to compare generalizations between nations around the world, take a look at what the world eats.

Check out the infographic below for some startling statistics.
Source: http://naturalsociety.com/average-american-diet-infographic/

americanaveragefoodconsumption Average American Diet Infographic

POLAND: MONSANTO GMO CORN - DEFINITELY LINKED TO COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER (CCD)

Poland beekeepers kick Monsanto out of the hive, successfully ban bee-killing GM corn

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036010_Poland_Monsanto_GM_corn.html#ixzz1wRzuNgGo(NaturalNews) A significant health freedom victory has taken place in the European nation of Poland, where all plantings of Monsanto's MON810, a genetically-modified (GM) variety of maize (corn) that produces its own built-in Bt insecticide in every kernel, have been officially banned.

The decision comes after thousands of protesters recently took to the streets in demonstration of the undeniable fact that both MON810 and the chemicals applied to it are at least partially responsible for causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the worldwide phenomenon in which entire swarms of honey bees disappear or turn up dead.

"The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland," said Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, who also explained to the press that pollen from MON810 appears to be responsible for further devastating the already dwindling bee population throughout the country and elsewhere.

According to reports, Poland's decision to ban MON810 makes it the first nation to formally acknowledge that Monsanto's GM corn is definitively linked to CCD. It also affirms the findings of several earlier studies that have identified a link between Bt GM crops and bee deaths, including independent research conducted by Pennsylvania beekeeper John McDonald.

McDonald's research found that bees foraging near Bt crops did not gain the proper amount of weight, and failed to produce honey in their honey supers (honey storage bins) when they should have. Their non-Bt crop counterparts, on the other hand, produced more than double the amount of honey they needed to survive the winter (http://www.naturalnews.com/025287.html).

Back in early March, nine European countries -- Belgium, Great Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, and Slovakia -- successfully blocked an effort by the Danish EU presidency to allow expanded cultivation of GM crops in Europe. And around that same time, France imposed its own ban on MON810.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to forge ahead in the unmitigated, and largely unregulated, cultivation and use of GM crops. Despite countless grassroots efforts to put at least some restraint on GM agriculture, including a number of state initiatives that would require GMO labeling on food, Monsanto's products continue to dominate much of the American agricultural landscape.

To learn more about how you can support the preservation of honeybees in your local community, be sure to visit: http://www.honeybeehaven.org/content/take-pledge

Sources for this article include:

http://www.polishnews.com

http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=22033501

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036010_Poland_Monsanto_GM_corn.html#ixzz1wRzRMmd8

Clean Food Earth