“You are what you eat” and “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” are two very old sayings that are simple to understand but are also quintessential if you want to gain and maintain optimal health. It is pretty simple; if you consume whole foods packed full of nutrition and void of toxins (pesticides, industrial chemicals and hormones ect..) you will give your body what it needs to build up a strong immune system (which is something that’s needed today more than ever with all the industrial chemicals polluting the environment). However, if you eat a diet full of fast and processed things made up of Genetically Engineered foods, covered in very harmful pesticides/herbicides, chemical ingredients (that the human body is not supposed to consume) and harmful hormones–  the opposite is true. Sadly, for a plethora of reasons, a lot of our society has a regular diet consisting of the latter.

One company has been largely responsible for this change. It’s name is Monsanto– a company that (at least at one point) did not allow products made from GMO seeds in some of their cafeterias  .

Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a chemical company. It has a long dark history of making chemical products that kill a lot of people. These chemicals include Saccharin, Aspartame, PCB’sDioxins (such as Agent Orange, Round Up and bovine growth hormones (not a chemical but a Genetically modified hormone). As if the list of deadly chemicals is not enough, court cases showed (through company memos and other documents) that they knew their products were harmful, yet made them anyways. They also produced hundreds of fake studies showing aspartame was safe, when it is one of the most toxic substances in our food supply. Now they are doing the same thing with GMO crops and we are just supposed to believe them this time? These are just a few reasons why Monsanto comes up when you search “the most evil company on the planet” online.

Monsanto’s War on Labeling

Monsanto spokesmen have repeatedly stated that they are for people having the right to know what is in the food they eat. However, their actions show they believe the otherwise. This began with dairy companies that started labeling “rBGH-free” milk on their traditional milk products. Monsanto claimed that the label was misleading because it raises questions about the safety of the rBGH milk (or POSILAC) we have consumed for years, just so these companies can charge more money for the same milk. The article then shows rBGH milk has been proven safe by saying this: “There was no difference in hormone content of retail milk based on label claims regarding the use of POSILAC.The findings of the study, conducted by Monsanto with third-party testing facilities and an independent auditing firm, reinforce that milk marketing claims differentiating milk based on the use of POSILAC are meaningless.” Well, doesn’t that sound familiar? Monsanto is once again making claims and backing them up with their own studies. However, like most of their products, independent scientist and doctors find different conclusions. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein’s book called “What’s in our milk” does a great job showing how Monsanto’s claims are blatant lies stating:

  • rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on its POSILAC label.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated by puss, due to the mastitis commonly induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
  • rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk.
  • rBGH milk is contaminated with rBGH, traces of which are absorbed through the gut.
  • rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut.
  • Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
  • IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.
  • rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms.
  • rBGH enriches Monsanto, while posing dangers, without any benefits to consumers, especially in view of the current national surplus of milk.

Monsanto’s attempts to stop labeling of their products does not end there. They have spent tens of millions of dollars to fund anti-labeling campaign’s in Oregon (in 2002 and again in 2014), CaliforniaWashington, and Colorado. Polls in each state leading up to the vote, showed most people wanted to know what is in our food. Despite this, the ‘No’ side won in every state.

On the night of the election in California, the media announced that the ‘No’s had won, despite millions of votes being uncounted. In fact, Jon Rappoport, an investigative journalist, looked at stats from just 4 county registries (of 58 in California) the next day and found that 1.6 million were still uncounted in these 4 counties alone. This is a clear attempt of manipulation by the media. It was also fraud but not the only example found with Prop 37.

Food Democracy Now tracked the vote counting on Prop 37 (California’s GMO labeling bill), stating the stats were being released everyday from Nov. 6th until Dec. 4th– when the ‘Yes’ votes reached a total of 6 million votes. At this time, the state announced that they would be counting the rest of the votes behind closed doors. On Dec.11, the state released the total votes and a strange thing happened; they used the total they posted for Dec 3 and excluded the count from the fourth and future days .

They mean to tell us they spent 7 days counting the rest of the votes and ended up with a lower number than they started with?!

Making matters worse, Food Democracy Now also found a team of independent statisticians that located “statistical anomalies” in the “largest precincts of 9 counties, including Orange, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda and San Diego counties.” Thankfully, in California, anyone can challenge the vote by calling for a recount as long as you are willing pay for it on a county by county basis. Tom Courbat, a former senior budget analyst in Los Angeles County, lead a group that tried to do just this. They started with Orange County, the third largest county with 3.1 million people. They had to pay a $3,400 “set up” fee with an additional $600 per day to pay for a counter and any needed personnel. The Orange County re-count took 3 days costing $5,400 total. Next they moved on to Sierra County (the 2nd smallest county in California) which took a few hours to tally the 1,800 votes at a cost of $500. At this point, the re-count was running smoothly with reasonable prices to run them. That all changed at their next stop– Fresno County– a county with a lot of Biotech presence.

Fresno County is the tenth largest county in California with a little under one million people, making it 3 times smaller than Orange County. Yet Fresno’s Registrar of Voters set the “set-up” fee at $14,000 dollars! That is only the beginning of the craziness… Brandi Orth, a country clerk for Fresno’s Registrar of voters, told Courbat via a governmental letter, that it would take 5 days at 6 hours a day just to locate the vote-by-mail ballets! The letter also stipulates that 5 vote counters costing $322 per-day each ($46 an hour with a 7 hour work day specified by Orth.) and 3 supervisors costing $650 per-day each ($92 an hour over the 7 hours) were needed to complete the re-count. This brought the daily total to just over $4,000 (when you add in all the other stipulations), which needed to be paid with the $14,000 set-up fee before it could even get started!

So a county 1/3 the size of Orange County was charging 4 times more to get the count started and almost 7 times more per day?! You would think the madness would have to stop there…. But sadly, it doesn’t. During a phone conversion with Orth, Courbat was informed that the county had started keeping track of the amount of time they had already spent to get ready for the start of the count. So even though he never authorized the recount and was just getting information on it, they were charging for the conversation and for the staff to prepare for the recount.. The extra price of this was a staggering $4,000!

All in all, Courbat estimated it would cost $78,000 to recount in Fresno, causing him to cancel because of lack of funds. This was without a question the goal, as there is no other explanation for a county 1/3 the size of Orange County to charge 15 times their price to perform the same task.

As hinted before, the Biotech industry just so happens to have a big presence in Fresno County. How big? The county is the number one county in the country for agriculture, making 5.3 billion in 2007. Jon Rappoport also uncovered (link in last sentence) that Orth was only installed as the county clerk 10 months before the vote on the proposition, after her predecessor suddenly announced his retirement with 3 years left on his contract. This doesn’t sound too strange, until you look at the  Fresno Board of Supervisors who hired her. The board consisted of 5 members, 2 of which were also members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau. As you might guess by the Bureau’s name and the fact that Fresno has the biggest biotech interest in the country, it was very opposed to Prop 37. The more you look into this, it becomes unquestionably clear there is a cover up going on.

In Vermont, Monsanto took making sure GMO labels did not make it to their products to a whole new level. GMO labeling is so popular there, that the Vermont House Agriculture Committee had to draw up a bill to label GMO’s (without needing neighboring states to do so as well, like the bills passed by Connecticut and Maine stipulate).

Monsanto’s response?

They threatened to sue the State of Vermont.

This was not the first time Vermont has been in Monsanto’s sights, leading to a lawsuit. Back in 1994 Vermont became the first state to start labeling milk that contained rBGH as such, which lead Monsanto to sue them in federal court. The judge ruled in favor of Monsanto saying they, a CORPORATION, has the first amendment right to not disclose that their milk has rBGH in it! This decision is even more disgusting considering Europe and Canada had already banned it because of the health issues, such as links to cancer.

Oh yes, ‘Merica– Home of the brave– Land of the free!

The good news is: the bill was signed into law last year; the bad new is: they were indeed sued claiming, much like the 1994 lawsuit, that their (the corporations that don’t want to tell us what’s in the food we eat) first amendment rights are being suppressed by not letting them hide their toxic food that food labels expose!

Fortunately, for the other first world countries, more places have either banned GMO’s or forced them to be labeled. Monsanto, being the monster with genocidal tendencies that it is, then sued the German government for not allowing them to plant their toxic seeds that need to be sprayed with their toxic chemicals. When did it become acceptable for one inanimate man-made construct– a corporation, to sue another inanimate man-made construct– a government, because the first one wants to plant things that hurt every living thing on the planet and the second one won’t let them?

What a crazy world we live in. One that not only gives these constructs Personhood by giving them the same rights as humans, but also allows them to harm others and the planet– something a flesh and blood human being is not allowed to do. Why is a corporation like Monsanto given Personhood, with the right to sue for not being allowed to harm?

One only needs to look at Monsanto’s relationship with the US government to answer this question. Which will be the focus of Monsanto: The Evil Empire- Part 2.

Online Yoga Classes

   

Share