Proof that Monsanto is Funding Mainstream GMO Research

Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.

Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.[i] [ii]

The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii]

This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position. If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.

So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity,  Monsanto has been putting money into research and development -- but not in the reputable sense of the phrase -- by paying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.

The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:

Even if no such conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.

A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:

For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology within which latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."

His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.

Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiative emerge, their votes.

#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.

#2: Grow it yourself, or support local organic growers.

#3: Support the California Ballot Initiative to label GMOs.

Article source:


[i] Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012 ;15(1):39-96. 
[ii] Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov ;61(2):172-84. Epub 2011 Jul 21. 

[iii] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin
B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15: 326–31.

[iv] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2003. Embryonic cell cycle for risk
assessment of pesticides at the molecular level. Environnemental. Chemistry. letters. 1: 8–12.

[v] Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004a. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the
prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 436–42

[vi] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49.

[vii] Marc, J., Le Breton, M., Cormier, P., Morales, J., Belle, R., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2005.
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.

[viii] Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary].

New Study Links Roundup Weedkiller to Cancer Growth

This study adds to a growing body of research demonstrating the carcinogenicity of Roundup herbicide. Only five months ago, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published a study indicating that glyphosate is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. To view the growing body of research on Roundup's potential to contribute to cancer initiation or promotion view our toxicology citations here: Roundup Toxicology Research.

Reflecting on the Implications
We leave the reader with some final reflections on the implications of this research. The wholesale dismissal of attempts to differentiate GMO from conventional products through accurate labeling is based on the idea that they are 'substantially equivalent.' But, this fallacious approach is based on the mistaken view that the only difference between GMO and non-GMO crops of feed and food importance is the presence of either the novel transgenes inserted into them or their novel transgene protein products.

The discovery of Roundup's extreme toxicity destroys that argument, and calls into question the credibility of any would-be 'scientist' or pro-GMO advocate who would propose otherwise.  How so? The fact is that the majority of approved GM plants have been genetically engineered to be "Roundup Ready," i.e. resistant to glyphosate, which means that the land they are grown upon is basically carpet-bombed with the chemical mixture to kill any living plant other than the glyphosate-resistant GM monocultures. The GM plants take up glyphosate, convert some of it to a similarly toxic metabolite AMPA, and survive the chemical exposure, while maintaining residues of both chemicals post-harvest -- which ultimately means that the consumer will be exposed to these compounds through their food.

This means that if you are not consuming foods that are explicitly GM free, you are being exposed to glyphosate (and glyphosate metabolites) on a daily basis. The difference, therefore between GMO and non-GMO is vastly more significant than simply the presence or absence of novel transgenes or their proteins.  It is the difference, candidly, between being exposed (poisoned) with a chemical with likely carcinogenicity or not being exposed to it.  For a more elaborate explanation read: Extreme Toxicity of Roundup Destroys GM/non-GM 'Substantial Equivalence' Argument.

Lastly, consider if Roundup (glyphosate) 'weed-killer' bore a warning sign 'may cause cancer,' or the tens thousands of products made with GM ingredients contaminated with it. Would there be any justifiable reason to resist GMO labeling? No, to the contrary, the focus would be on banning them immediately, instead of cow-towing to the powers that be to allow us the choice not to be poisoned by default.

Despite the so called "science" and "reason" based GMO proponents who think it makes sense to have mattresses labeled, but not food you put into your body, the actual empirical, peer-reviewed and published research – not ghost-written or funded by biotech corporations themselves – says that this omnipresent herbicide has multiple models of carcinogenicity, and in concentration ranges far below agricultural application, as far down as to the parts-per-trillion range. It is time those paying lip service to the 'evidence-based' model of GMO risk assessment, and who recklessly promote the dystopian interests of biotech corporations, address the evidence itself, or stop co-opting powerful sounding terms like "Science" to justify their highly irrational and ultimately biased and self-serving perspectives on the subject.

Source :

How To Make A Homemade Compost Tumbler

The Crunchy Housewife

Learn how to prepare dark, rich, nutrient-dense compost for your garden. make compost using a water barrel, whether you live in a homestead, In the city or somewhere In between. It's fast, cheap and easy!
* It's Important to Note that the best size of holes to drill into the barrel (for aeration) are holes that are 1/4" to 3/8"

They have made a few improvements on the design of the composter and made a short video about it :

Image: YouTube

An Organic Farm Produced 1 Million Pounds Of Food in 2 Acres (in the winter, without heating)

Small-scale organic farming is the answer to world hunger, not large chemically-dominated monocultures or GMOs. That was the main finding of a 2011 United Nations report titled "Agro-ecology and the Right to Food."

Despite this empowering, exciting discovery, the mainstream media has continually ignored the power of the small-scale farmer, whether urban or suburban, at least in terms of its coverage on stories relating to Big Ag. The mantra of "GMOs and pesticides are needed to feed the world" is often repeated in hopes that it will be taken as the truth.

Despite this oft-repeated misconception, those of us in the organic and food justice movements continue forward, proving every day that all of the answers have been with us from the very beginning thanks to nature's grand design.

Whether it's Indian farmers growing world-record amounts of rice and potatoes the natural way or urban farmers like former pro basketball star Will Allen growing a million pounds of food in less than optimal conditions, we see extraordinary things happening in the world of organic food production all the time. Hopefully, the media will start to repeat them as well.
Farmer Grows One Million Pounds on Two Acres in Wintertime

In the projects of Milwaukee, a burgeoning urban farming movement has taken place, and the aforementioned Allen is among the leaders.

The urban farming pioneer was even named as one of the "World's Most Popular Foodies" by Forbes magazine because of his work.

Allen farms at Growing Power (, a multi-generational non-profit community food system that has inspired similar projects taking shape in Wisconsin, Illinois and other Midwest areas.

"I grew a million pounds of food on just a few acres, in the dead of winter- without heating," Allen has been quoted as saying.

Growing Power consists of: six greenhouses, an apiary with 14 beehives, two aquaponics hoop houses and much more, at least at the time of recent articles.

Allen's story has become so popular that it's been re-told through the alternative media several times in the past few years since it first broke in 2009, and each time, it seems to receive more and more buzz.

He's been quoted as saying that industrial farming is depleting the soil, and started the project out of love and necessity for his local community.

"We've got to change the system so everyone has safe, equitable access to healthy food," he said to the New York Times in 2009.

Allen's example is one we can all emulate, and one we should all continue to retell until the day comes when every city has access to quality organic food.

Article found on :