EU Approves ‘Historic’ Ban On Bee Killing Pesticides

by Philip Schneider via Waking Times

In light of growing scientific evidence linking certain insecticides known as neonicotinoid insecticides or neonics to rapidly collapsing bee populations, the European Union voted to place a permanent ban on virtually all use of these bee-killing toxins.

The decision to vote on the ban came shortly after the European Food Safety Authority announced that after conducting a major review of more than 1,500 studies relating to neonicotinoids, the council had decided that the pesticides clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam all pose a significant risk to wild bees and honeybees.

Under the new law, the three main neonics cited in the study will only be allowed in “permanent greenhouses” away from any possible contact with wild or domestic bees. The rules are set to take effect around the end of the year and build on current restrictions from 2013.

“Most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a risk to wild bees and honeybees, according to assessments published today by EFSA. The Authority has updated its risk assessments of three neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – that are currently subject to restrictions in the EU because of the threat they pose to bees.” – European Food Safety Authority

Although their conclusions vary depending on the type of bee and form of exposure, the EFSA states that the insecticides pose a clear “overall” risk to wild and domestic bee populations. Wild bees such as bumblebees were also taken into account in the study, however the largest available information was on honeybees.

“Bees can be exposed to neonicotinoids in multiple ways, depending on the use of the pesticide. The assessment indicated that in many cases bees foraging on the treated crop in the field as well as in its vicinity are likely to be exposed to harmful levels of the neonicotinoid pesticides.” – EFSA

Although the ban has been widely well-received, some are wondering how farmers will manage without these pesticides to fall back on. Sandra Bell, bee campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe argues that the ban will encourage independence from the use of harmful chemicals and pesticides.

“Many farmers are already successfully growing crops without neonicotinoids. But too many other damaging chemicals and practices are still used. Farmers need more support from the European Commission and national governments to farm with nature – not against it.” – Sandra Bell

Having campaigned for years to end the use of these pesticides, environmental activist groups are touting the ban as a “groundbreaking” and “historic” win, while hoping that it will inspire other countries to begin restricting the use of bee-killing pesticides as well.

Vytenis Andriukaitis, a European Councilman who voted in favor of the bill, tweets his approval of the new ban for protecting biodiversity and the environment in Europe.

“Plenty of lovely bees at #Schuman today. Happy that Member States voted in favour of our proposal to further restrict the use of active substances #imidacloprid #clothianidin #thiamethoxam known as #neonicotinoids ! Vital for #Biodiversity #FoodProduction #Environment” – Vytenis Andriukaitis, European Commission Councilman in charge of Health and Food Safety

Critics of neonics are also wondering how their movement will be affected by Trump’s current administration and EPA, which has tended to side with businesses rather than environmental protections.

“The EU’s wisdom highlights the Trump EPA’s folly. Although U.S. beekeepers reported catastrophic losses again this winter, and just in this past week the EPA closed a comment period on another suite of damning neonicotinoid risk assessments, rather than banning these dangerous pesticides, the agency is actually considering increasing the use of neonics across another 165 million acres.” – Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Environmental Health Program

Regardless of what is happening in America, Europe is now seeing what Lori calls a “science-based regulation of pesticides” which will likely cause a ripple effect throughout much of the world.


Source Article from

A List of Toxic Teabags Containing Illegal Amounts Of Toxic Pesticides You Maybe Want To Avoid

Next Story

There’s nothing better than a nice steaming hot cup of tea, am I right? I don’t know about you, but I love tea, and drink it pretty much whenever I can and almost always in the evening. Tea can offer so many different health benefits that give you antioxidants and nutrients, can boost the immune system, help burn fat, aid in digestion and even protect against cancer. All these benefits  you may miss out on if your tea just happens to be soaked in toxic pesticides  like most generic brands are, unfortunately.

CBC News conducted an investigation to test the pesticide levels in some of the most major-tea brands that we see in supermarkets, at restaurants and what many of us have in our homes. They found that over half of all of the teas that were tested had levels of pesticide residue that were above what was accepted legally. A wide variety of chemicals were found in 8 or the 10 teas that were tested, one contained over 22 different types of chemical pesticides.

Pesticides Linked To A Variety Of Ailments

Numerous studies have revealed that various pesticides are linked to cancer, ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, reproductive issues, birth defects and more. Pesticides can cause harm to the nervous and endocrine system disrupting hormones. Pesticides can harm babies in utero and even cause birth defects.

The use of pesticides is generally accepted because they are supposed to be below a legal limit, but what is often not considered is that pesticides can accumulate within the body and cause severe damage over time.

A study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that following an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults.

Thirteen participants were randomly selected to consume a diet consisting of at least 80% organic or conventional food for seven days, afterwards crossing over to the alternative diet from which they started. Scientists analyzed urinary levels of pesticides and discovered that urinary dialkylphosphates (DAPs) measurements were 89% lower when participants ate an organic diet for seven days compared to a conventional diet for the same amount of time.

The researchers also discuss the complicated history of pesticide use:

“To understand this controversial issue it is helpful to look at the history of pesticide use. Prior to World War II, the pesticides that we use now did not yet exist. Some pesticides currently in use were in fact developed during the World War II for use in warfare. The organophosphate insecticides were developed as nerve gases, and the phenoxy herbicides, including 2,4-D (the most commonly used herbicide in Canada), were created to eradicate the Japanese rice crop, and later used as a component of Agent Orange to defoliate large areas in jungle warfare. After World War II, these chemicals began to be used as pesticides in agricultural production, for environmental spraying of neighbourhoods for mosquito eradication, and for individual home and garden use.”

The Most Toxic Tea Brands

  • Lipton (Pure Green Tea, Yellow Label and Black Tea)
  • Tetley
  • Twinning
  • Red Rose
  • No Name
    Uncle Lee’s Legends of China (Green and Jasmine Green Tea)
  • King Cole
  • Signal

It’s kind of ironic because some of the names like “Pure Green Tea” are nothing more than a marketing ploy to make you feel believe that it is all natural, this is exactly why organic is always a better choice.

Toxic Tea Bags

So, if the alarming levels of pesticides wasn’t enough to get you to make the switch, perhaps the epichlorohydrin that is used to treat these tea bags to ensure that they do not disintegrate or tear, will. This chemical, epichlorohydrin is a chlorinated epoxy compound that is used as an industrial solvent. It is not only a strong skin irritant, but also a known carcinogen. According to Dow, it is a very dangerous chemical that requires a special handling procedure, and yep, that’s right – the tea bag companies mentioned above use this chemical to spray their bags. That chemical is not only being absorbed into our skin, but it’s being extracted in hot water and then consumed. Yuck.

So, What Are Our Options?

Your absolute best bet is to purchase organic lose leaf tea and a stainless steel or silicon strainer. This will ensure that you aren’t sipping back a slew of toxic pesticides and chemical laden teabags. This option is obviously much less wasteful as well and in turn better for the environment.

L0ose leaf teas are also much less processed, and while purchasing organic teas from the store can get expensive, you can very easily make your own blends by purchasing organic herbs in bulk and concocting your very own creations.

Tea can either be very medicinal and great for your body, or it can be a hot cup of chemicals that can interfere with the natural processes of your body and accumulate in it over a long period of  time. If tea is something that you like to consume on a regular basis, like me, then it is probably a good idea to get good quality, organic teas from ethically sourced and sustainable companies.

Be Change

Making this decision to know what you are purchasing, putting into your body and contributing to is something that you can implement in every aspect of your life. The more people who seek out and choose organic teas from companies that support global sustainability will inevitably cause the generic tea companies to either shut down or change their ways as well as adopt better business practices. Vote with your dollar and put your money where your mouth is! This is one way that we can all BE CHANGE.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

The Results Are In! These Fruits & Veggies Have The Most Pesticides In 2018

Next Story

If you’re like me, you have questions about the food you’re consuming – or as a general rule of thumb, you aim to be conscious & cautious of what goes into your body on the day-to-day.

What should we really consider is purchasing organic, so that we can breathe a little easier knowing our toxin intake is bare minimum but how do we really determine this?

Well, thankfully for us we won’t have to leave it up to luck or intuition to get the proper nutrients without the unwanted chemicals some produce carries. Every year, the Environmental Working Group tests a majority of the fruits and vegetables that make up the market in order to determine which conventionally grown produce contain the most—and least—chemical pesticides and luckily – It’s that time of year again.

Released early this morning, their 2018 report has found that nearly 70 percent of produce tested was contaminated with pesticide residues.

According to the report, strawberries, spinach, and nectarines were the worst offenders for the second year in a row. The average strawberry sampled tested positive for a whopping 20 different pesticides, and spinach had 1.8 times more pesticide residue by weight than any other crop. On the other end of the spectrum, avocados and sweet corn were the cleanest crops, with less than 1 percent of samples showing any detectable pesticides.

As a side, eating organic is ideal, but if you can’t, or when you can’t, it’s great to know what to stay away from. If keeping your being in optimal shape to connect with yourself spiritually is part of your goal, eating clean and putting harmonious foods into your body is a necessary step.

To read more into the known negative side effects caused by pesticides, Read Here.

Here’s the complete 2018 ranking, and you can take a look at the EWG’s official report here:


Make sure you share this article with family & friends to spread the knowledge. 🙂

Still want to learn more about this topic? Below are some more articles to dive deeper and gain more insight!

Let’s end this with a quote from Hippocrates:

Remember, remember, re-member.



The Shamanic Way of Healing

The Sacred Science follows eight people from around the world, with varying physical and psychological illnesses, as they embark on a one-month healing journey into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

This incredible true story details how ancient shamanic healing methods can work to shift our bodies and minds. here.

Read the incredible true story here.

The Shamanic Way of Healing

8 people with illnesses go into the jungle to heal naturally… read the incredible true story here.


Source Article from

A Third Of Birds Have Disappeared In France Due To Pesticides

By Jess Murray Truth Theory

New research has found that bird populations in the French countryside have declined by a third in just 15 years.

After learning that dozens of species have declined in numbers, Benoit Fontaine, a conservation biologist at France’s National Museum of Natural History and co-author of one of the studies, commented, “The situation is catastrophic. Our countryside is in the process of becoming a veritable desert.” Just some of the species that have fallen by at least a third include the common white throat, the ortolan bunting and the Eurasian skylark, whilst the meadow pipit, a migratory song-bird, has declined by a huge 70%.

The museum explained that the pace and extent of the decline is reaching “a level approaching an ecological catastrophe”. Researchers have concluded that one of the main causes for this steep decline is the intensive use of pesticides on crops, including wheat and corn, which is killing of the insects that the birds eat, thereby depleting their food source. Vincent Bretagnolle, a CNRS ecologist at the Centre for Biological Studies in Chize, said, “There are hardly any insects left, that’s the number one problem.”

Further to this, he also pointed to the recent study across Europe which found that flying insects have declined by 80%, as well as bird populations declining by more than 400m in just 30 years. This has occurred despite government plans to cut the use of pesticides by 50% by 2020, as sales have risen steadily in France. According to European Union figures, sales of pesticides reached more than 75,000 tonnes of active ingredient in 2014.

Bretagnolle stated, “What is really alarming, is that all the birds in an agricultural setting are declining at the same speed, even ’generalist’ birds. That shows that the overall quality of the agricultural eco-system is deteriorating.”

Scientists further claimed that shrinking woodlands, the absence of leaving fields to lie fallow and the expansion of mono-crops have also played a role in the wildlife decline. Fontaine added, “If the situation is not yet irreversible, all the actors in the agriculture sector must work together to change their practices.”

I’m Jess Murray, wildlife conservationist, photographer and writer. Follow my Facebook page and Instagram account to be part of the journey. I like to document the natural world and create awareness through my writing so that your future can be sustainable and positive.

Image Featured/Credit:: Wikimedia Commons

Source: The Guardian

Get free copy of our 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control!

Source Article from

Can You Taste Pesticides in Your Food?

SOURCE–As I have reported in the past, while fruits and vegetables are among the healthiest foods you can eat, nonorganic varieties are commonly contaminated with pesticides. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reports more than 75 percent of the U.S. population has detectable levels of organophosphate pesticides in their urine.1

In a survey conducted in 2013,2 71 percent of Americans expressed concern over the number of chemicals and pesticides in their food supply. Studies linking long-term pesticide exposure to neurological diseases,3 birth defects,4 endocrine disruptionobesity, cancers5and more are only growing in number. It therefore follows, if you reduce your pesticide exposure, it would likely improve your health and reduce your risk for chronic diseases.

Unfortunately, while research demonstrates exposure to these pesticides is unhealthy for both human health and the environment, the amount used commercially and in residential areas only continues to grow. According to an analysis done in 2012 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,6 for every 1 percent increase in crop yield there is an associated 1.8 percent increase in pesticide use.

Logically, this is an unsustainable course as the environmental and health ramifications associated with pesticide use and exposure rise accordingly. Even after years of exposure to pesticides in your foods, scientists have found you may well be able to tell the difference between eating organically grown foods and those laced with glyphosate and other pesticides.7

Does Your Food Taste Dry?

In a first-of-its-kind study led by University of Caen Normandy molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Ph.D., scientists examined 16 pairs of organic and nonorganic wines produced in seven regions of France and one from Italy. To ensure the best comparison, the wines were produced with the same varieties of grapes grown organically and conventionally, in the same types of soils and neighboring vineyards, as well as in the same climate and in the same year.8

The researchers carried out 195 blind taste tests by 36 professionals from the wine and culinary industries. The wines chosen were tested for over 250 different pesticides in a laboratory. One of the organic bottles was found to contain trace amount of pesticides. In the nonorganic wines, 4,686 parts per billion of different pesticides were found, mostly fungicides and glyphosate-based herbicides.9

In preparation for the test, pesticides were diluted in water at levels present in the nonorganic wines. In 85 percent of the cases, professionals were able to recognize pesticides by taste and 58 percent of the professionals were able to recognize all the water glasses containing pesticides.10 Next, the professionals were asked to taste the wines. Of those who were able to detect pesticides in the water, 57 percent could match the wine with the water containing the exact blend of pesticides.

The wine connoisseurs and culinary experts preferred organic wines 77 percent of the time.11 Participants were asked to describe the taste of the pesticides, offering terms such as “drying” effect and papilla blockade. The latter term described an impaired sense of taste brought on by drinking wine contaminated with pesticides.

The researchers believe their test demonstrated people are able to recognize the taste of pesticides in drinks and potentially in foods. They concluded12 “there is no scientific reason why this is not feasible.” Adding:13

“A larger study could also be envisaged, not only to confirm the presence and distribution of pesticides in food and beverages, but also to progress from this primary test of feeling to sensory test on a wider range of pesticides and a larger number of volunteers.”

Foods Labeled ‘All Natural’ Include Glyphosate and Other Pesticides

The consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry is one of the largest in North America, valued at approximately $2 trillion.14 The anti-GMO activist group, Moms Across America,15 tested CPG lunch food products, finding trace levels of herbicide were frequently present in products from Lipton tea to Skippy’s peanut butter. The group used Health Research Institute Laboratories to test products, revealing glyphosate in samples of almond milk, veggie burgers and other products.16

Even though the levels fall below the EPA’s legally permitted thresholds for pesticides in food, Moms Across America describe the levels as “disturbing.”17 What Moms Across America knows, and manufacturers would like you to disregard, is that while the amount of herbicide and pesticide found in a single item may be small, it’s compounded daily by the number of products you eat every day, 365 days of the year.

Thus, while the levels of pesticides fall within legally permitted thresholds,18 they may drastically exceed them if you regularly eat a lot of processed foods. Moms Across America believes no level of glyphosate is safe, even in microscopic quantities. The consumer group also argues products claiming to be “all natural,” should not contain any level of glyphosate. This same point has been made in a number of recent lawsuits.

In coming months, California’s Proposition 65, a list of chemicals believed to be carcinogenic, will include glyphosate. Formerly known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, this initiative was designed to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances by requiring advanced warning of exposure.19

Judge Increases Cost of Legal Action to Defend Consumers

A lawsuit filed by the Organic Consumers Association alleges a misrepresentation in Bigelow green tea, as the company labels it “all natural” but testing finds trace levels of glyphosate residue. The lawsuit was filed just three days before the EPA issued a draft risk assessment for glyphosate, finding20 “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The risk assessment goes on to say the EPA finds no potential ecological risk to birds, mammals and aquatic plants.

Thus, the EPA refuses to acknowledge the plethora of independent research demonstrating toxic effects of glyphosate on the environment and human health. In an interesting turn of events, a federal judge tossed out a lawsuit accusing Quaker Oats of misleading consumers with their 100 percent natural claims on products containing trace levels of glyphosate.21 The lawsuit was brought at the state level in Illinois. However, the federal judge stated:22

“Because Congress has preempted the field of food labeling, and because the presence of pesticides and chemical residues is governed by federal statute, plaintiffs cannot challenge Quaker Oats labeling understate or common law.”

According to a leading food law attorney quoted in the Food Navigator, the ruling does not accurately reflect preemption of the federal government and therefore is likely to be overturned. However, the ruling has effectively increased the cost and lengthened the time for the trial.

Why Manufacturers Often Do Not Just Switch to Organic Ingredients

When asked for a comment about how manufacturers should respond to the rising number of lawsuits against them, attorney Ryan Kaiser from the law firm of Amin Talati Upadhye,23 who focuses on the food and beverage industry, said:24

“Indemnification clauses can help shift the expense of litigation to the supplier. It will take away some of the sting from paying settlement amounts. Manufacturers can also budget for these challenges and see them through in court, which we’re seeing a lot of brands doing with success.”

In other words, manufacturers are more interested in weighing the cost versus benefit ratio in making decisions about the production of their goods. This means the company weighs the cost of a lawsuit against lost profits if they make changes in their supply chain to ensure glyphosate and other pesticides are eliminated. As manufacturers find the immediate increase in cost of using organically grown ingredients is higher than the potential cost of lawsuits, they frequently opt not to change their process.

This has been demonstrated numerous times in past years, but never so prominently as when DuPont was fined $16.5 million for not disclosing information about the risks to health and the environment by using C8 in the production of Teflon.25

Although the penalty was one of the highest ever made by the EPA, it was only a small portion of the profits DuPont enjoys from the manufacture and use of the chemical. The fine did not stop the company from continuing to pollute the environment. It appears DuPont estimated the risk of a penalty and lawsuits against their profits, and profits won.

Glyphosate Is Decimating Soil Microbes and Your Gut Microbiome

Your gut microbiome is vital to your health, and microbes living in the soil are vital to the health of growing plants. Unfortunately, glyphosate is known to decimate both. Already at the center of several class action lawsuits filed by cancer patients, another recent study26 has linked glyphosate with a reduction in beneficial bacteria in the colon.

Female rats were exposed to Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate, and found that regardless of the dose, gut bacteria underwent significant changes.

The study was conducted by Seralini, the same French molecular biologist who led the featured wine study. Seralini has spent years researching genetically modified food and the impact glyphosate has on human health.27 He is best known for his study linking genetically modified corn and Roundup to cancer. While pressure from Monsanto initially led to the retraction of the study, it has since been republished.28

Your health is in large part determined by the health of the soil in which your food is grown. Industrial farming practices have been in place for close to a century and have decimated the soil by killing the microbes living there. By undermining the health of the soil and plants from the roots up, industrial farming has negatively impacted the nutrient density of most food. As a result, even though you think you’re eating some of the healthiest foods available, they may be deficient in micronutrients.

The active ingredient in a vast majority of weed killers on the market today is glyphosate. As any plant sprayed with the chemical dies, pesticide producers created glyphosate resistant seed through genetic engineering. This has allowed farmers to spray their plants without fear the chemical will decimate the crops. However, it does kill the bacteria living in the soil and glyphosate in your food kills bacteria living in your gut.

Glyphosate also interrupts intracellular communication, which is at the heart of virtually all diseases. To discover more about how glyphosate interferes with soil microbes and cellular communication, see my previous article, “How Soil Microbes and Intercellular Communication Affects Human Health.”

As I’ve discussed at length in previous articles, your gut has an enormous influence on a variety of systems in your body, including your neurological health. It even influences your genetic expression. A healthy gut microbiome helps prevent a number of health conditions, including depression, obesity, Crohn’s disease and allergies. You’ll find more information about the relationship between your gut microbiome and health in my previous article, “Research Reveals the Importance of Your Microbiome for Optimal Health.”

Monsanto Suing to Protect Empire Built on Carcinogens

Industry giants are actively fighting to protect their financial base at the expense of your health. In Monsanto’s newest move to acquire information, they served a 168-page court subpoena to Avaaz,29 a web-based organization promoting activism on subjects such as human rights, corruption and poverty. Avaaz has roughly 45 million subscribers30 worldwide, nearly 4 million of whom face having their personal information and communication with Avaaz about Monsanto handed to the corporate giant if this subpoena is not overturned.31

Avaaz has been part of an activist movement trying to regulate the distribution and use of glyphosate, which provided Monsanto with over $10 million in revenue in 2015.32 Additionally, the company posted revenue of $4.7 million from the sale of genetically altered seed bred to withstand the application of glyphosate. As the popularity of glyphosate has grown,33 so have the number of studies demonstrating the risks associated with human health and the environment.

The subpoena is requesting the release of documentation and notes, “without limitation.”34 Avaaz says this will include personal information about their employees and signatory emails of more than 4 million who signed petitions against Monsanto’s glyphosate and genetic modification policies. The scope of the subpoena is greater than what has been granted in the past and is significant as Monsanto has a history of tapping into deep pockets to use strong-arm tactics against critics.35

Scott Partridge, Monsanto vice president for global strategy, claims the massive subpoena is aimed at gathering evidence to uncover links between Avaaz and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma suffers who are currently suing Monsanto. Partridge commented,36 “This [subpoena] is directed entirely at the coordinated campaign between Avaaz and the plaintiff’s lawyers, spreading misinformation about the safety of glyphosate, or characterizing it as being a carcinogen.”

Emma Ruby-Sachs, deputy director of Avaaz, responded to the subpoena describing how this strategy may undermine the rights of individuals against corporations in the future, saying:37

“Avaaz beat Monsanto in Europe and in Argentina, and so they’re coming after us in U.S. courts. Imagine a world where any time you called on your government to regulate a corporation because science showed its products could be making people sick, that corporation could force you to reveal everything you and your friends had ever privately written or said about them. That is the world Monsanto is hoping to create.

There are millions of people around the world who have a deep and genuine concern that Monsanto’s glyphosate is making us and our environment sick. That is the sole reason our members have called on governments to regulate it based on independent science. We’re not going to let this legal attack slowdown that essential work one bit.

We believe Monsanto’s demand for all our internal communications is a complete violation of our First Amendment rights — they even go after the email addresses of hundreds of thousands of Avaaz members! And, critically, none of this has anything to do with Ronald Peterson and Jeff Hall’s claim that Monsanto’s products gave them cancer.”

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.

It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies such as Monsanto. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to evade these laws.

In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.

You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction. Argentinians are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.

Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!

Biotech companies’ outrageous attempts to push for their corporate interests extend far beyond the halls of government. In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto and its cohorts are now zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.

By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.

Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.

Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, is acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Biotech’s behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.

Monsanto has adopted underhanded tactics to peddle its toxic products, but the company is unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will, in no way, shape or form, make the world a better place. It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it will most certainly not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.

There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do

So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break Monsanto’s tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has been turned.

As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods. There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:

Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

What you won’t find on this site: Google Analytics, Google Adsense, Amazon, Disqus Comments, MailChimp, and Pop-Ups. If you have the means, please consider making a small donation to fund our work. Your support is much appreciated. Donate via Pay Pal here. Donate via Cash App here. Become a monthly member here.

Source Article from

Quebec announces restrictions on honeybee-harming pesticides

While not banning the killer pesticides altogether, the new measure will at least hopefully help the beleaguered pollinators.

Something funny happens to bees when they fly through clouds of chemicals meant to kill insects. Like, they die … weird, right?

Thankfully – since humans are reliant on honeybees’ pollinating skills for one-third of our crops and most of the planet’s wild plants– some places in the world are deciding to prioritize the health of honeybees over the profits of pesticide manufacturers.

Joining Ontario (which put restrictions on neonicotinoids) and Montreal (which banned them altogether) Quebec has announced that going forward, farmers will be required to get permission from a certified agronomist before using certain pesticides on crops, reports CBC News. The new no-no pesticides include three types of neonicotinoides, along with chlorpyrifos and atrazine. CBC writes:

Last September, the International Union for Conservation of Nature updated a 2015 report on neonicotinoids, which said a review of more than 1,110 peer-reviewed research studies showed there was no doubt that flying through chemical-laden clouds of dust from neonic-treated farm fields is killing bees.

The province’s sustainable development minister, Isabelle Melançon, made the announcement in Quebec City, saying that the new rules strike a balance between the needs of farmers and environmental concerns, notes CBC.

While some Quebec farmers have voiced concern about how pesticide regulations might affect crop yields, it seems prudent to remember that crops without these toxic pesticides presumably can’t be worse than crops without bees –
since crops without bees could end up not being crops at all.

Source Article from

Amazon charged with 4,000 counts of selling illegal pesticides

Image: Amazon charged with 4,000 counts of selling illegal pesticides

(Natural News), founded by Jeff Bezos — the current owner of the Washington Post — has been caught committing nearly 4,000 counts of selling illegal pesticides. The EPA spearheaded the investigation that revealed Amazon to be profiting from the sales of toxic, deadly substances that directly threaten the health of children. No criminal charges have yet been filed against the poison-pushing e-commerce giant, but Amazon was forced to pay $1.2 million to the EPA as part of the settlement (see below).

In a Feb. 15, 2018 announcement, the EPA describes a sting operation that caught Amazon selling illegal pesticides on multiple occasions, in clear violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. From the announcement:

In late 2014, EPA began investigating online pesticide product distributions and sales through several internet retail sites including Amazon and third-party sellers that used Amazon’s online marketing platform. In March 2015, EPA inspected an Amazon facility in Lexington, Kentucky, and inspectors in EPA’s Region 10 office successfully ordered illegal pesticides from In August 2015, EPA issued a FIFRA Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order against Amazon to prohibit the sale of the illegal pesticide products that can easily be mistaken for black-board or side-walk chalk, especially by children.

EPA issued another Stop Sale Order against Amazon in January 2016 after discovering that certain unregistered or misbranded insecticide bait products were being offered for sale on After receiving the stop sale orders, Amazon immediately removed the products from the marketplace, prohibited foreign sellers from selling pesticides, and cooperated with EPA during its subsequent investigation.

Keep in mind that any other company caught selling illegal pesticides would likely see its executives arrested and its inventory confiscated at gunpoint. But, with its CIA data contracts and Bezos’ ownership of the propaganda fake news publisher The Washington Post, was merely asked to cover the EPA’s “administrative costs.”

“Amazon will also pay an administrative penalty of $1,215,700 as part of the consent agreement and final order entered into by Amazon and EPA’s Region 10 office in Seattle, Washington,” reads the EPA announcement.

In other words, Amazon got off with a slap on the wrist and wasn’t even required to give up the profits it earned from selling the illegal poisons all across America. (More and more, Amazon’s relationship with U.S. regulators is starting to sound like Monsanto’s relationship with the corrupt USDA…)

Amazon repeatedly sold illegal pesticides that children could easily mistake for chalk or candy

As part of its profiting from illicit pesticide sales, Amazon sold illegal and highly toxic products that looked like “toys or even candy,” reports the Seattle Times. “Arriving in bright, cheery and easily opened packaging, the products look like sidewalk chalk, toys or even candy. Any child could easily open and play with them… the toxicity of the illegal products and possible appeal to children make them especially dangerous.”

In an age where children and teens are now gobbling up Tide laundry pods, the importance of making sure that toxic poisons aren’t marketed in child-attracting packaging can hardly be overstated.

It’s clear from the announcement that Amazon utterly failed to police its own product suppliers, relying solely on “self compliance” instead of actively restricting illegal products from being sold in the Amazon marketplace. Now, Amazon claims it will start training its suppliers to stop selling illegal pesticides, but makes no mention of any effort to actually force them to comply. “Under the terms of the agreement, Amazon said it will develop an online training course about pesticide regulations and policies in an effort to reduce the number of illegal pesticides available through the online marketplace,” says the Seattle Times.

Does anyone think the Health Ranger Store would be granted such easy, voluntary consequences if we had been caught selling toxic, illegal chemicals that could be eaten by children? It’s clear that Amazon enjoys a unique “immunity” from prosecution that would never be granted to smaller e-commerce companies. (Interesting, isn’t it, how Google, Facebook, YouTube and Amazon all seem to be able to get away with fraud, censorship, criminality and racketeering on everything imaginable… and these are the same companies whose left-leaning employees demand EQUALITY?)

Follow more breaking news on the toxicity of pesticides at

If Amazon openly sold dangerous, illegal pesticides that looked like children’s candy, what other toxic products is it selling right now?

All this makes you wonder: What other extremely toxic, illegal products is Amazon selling right now?

As Natural News has already documented, Amazon willingly sells food products contaminated with alarming levels of toxic heavy metals. See the article, “After being falsely accused, Natural News releases full lab test results for Indus Organics turmeric powder.”

With Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods, “Jeff Bezos has created the world’s largest marketplace of untested health products contaminated with heavy metals and pesticides,” I wrote in 2017.

Now, it seems the EPA just confirmed that fact once again. Thumbs up to the EPA for running this investigation and actually achieving something useful for public health, by the way. Now if we could just get the agency to take a closer look at the Biosludge mass poisoning of America, that would be real progress.

Now it is a matter of record that sells toxic, illegal poisons in violation of federal law. Perhaps that’s why Amazon is steadily rising as one of the “most evil companies” in America (currently dominated by Monsanto, a manufacturer of toxic agricultural poisons).

Read more breaking news about the unethical, irresponsible activities of and Jeff Bezos at



Source Article from

Paradigm Shifting Study Finds Danger to Bees That is Far Worse than Pesticides

The discovery has now been added to the growing list of threats that could potentially lead to the extinction of the essential pollinators. The revelation that common fungicides are having the strongest impact on the insects came as a surprise, as they typically affect mold and mildew, but appear to be killing bees by making them more susceptible to the nosema parasite or by exacerbating the toxicity of other pesticides.

The discovery was made during a landscape-scale study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which used machine learning technology to analyze 24 different factors and how they impacted four bumblebee species.

The study collected ‘subjects’ from 284 sites across 40 US states and tested them against various factors like latitude, elevation, habitat type and damage, human population and pesticide use.

For context, about 75 percent of the world’s crops are fertilized by pollinators. The widespread decline of bees has been attributed to a number of factors including pesticides, destruction of their habitats, disease and climate change, but until now it was unclear which was the most decisive factor.

The unexpected culprit behind bee decline means “people have not been looking in all the places they probably should,” according to lead author of the study, Cornell University’s Scott McArt.

We threw everything but the kitchen sink at this analysis and the ‘winner’ was fungicides,” McArt said to UMass. “It turns out that fungicide use is the best predictor of bumblebees getting sick and being lost from sites across the U.S.”

I was definitely surprised,” said McArt, to The Guardian, as “fungicides have been largely overlooked,” until now. Going forward, McArt says researchers will have to carry out “much more work on fungicides and their role in bee declines” if humanity is to make any progress in regenerating the dying species.

Common systemic pesticide sprays are used worldwide to manage landscapes, and are often found in nectar and pollen. Another recent study, published in the same journal, found chemicals are causing severe nutritional stress on honey bees, affecting their survival rates by a whopping 50 percent.

The Canadian government recently failed to protect bees after rejecting a plea by environmentalists to completely ban the use of insecticides, instead opting to continue their use of neonicotinoids, promising to consider limiting the use of pesticides by March 2018.

Source Article from

Pesticides sprayed on U.S. cities to fight Zika found to harm motor coordination and neuromuscular systems in children

Image: Pesticides sprayed on U.S. cities to fight Zika found to harm motor coordination and neuromuscular systems in childrenImage: Pesticides sprayed on U.S. cities to fight Zika found to harm motor coordination and neuromuscular systems in children

(Natural News)
Naled, a pesticide commonly used in Florida to ward off Zika-carrying mosquitoes, was associated with motor function deficits in Chinese babies, according to a study published in Environment International.

As part of the study, a team of researchers at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and the U-M Center for Human Growth and Development examined umbilical cord blood samples from about 240 mothers between 2008 and 2011. The research team then followed the development of the babies using the Peabody Developmental Motor Skill Assessment at six weeks and nine months.

The experts found that in-vitro exposure to the pesticide naled was tied to a three to four percent decline in fine motor skills, which indicate small movements of hands, fingers, face, mouth and feet, at nine months for babies who belonged in the upper percentile compared with those who had lower exposure levels. The research team also found that the chemical appeared to have a more detrimental effect on girls compared with boys.

“Just because changes are small, that doesn’t mean they should be discounted. We really need to know more about it… Zika is a huge concern [and it is important] to always make sure there’s a focus on integrated pest management and not to just jump straight to spraying a chemical,” lead author Monica Silver told the Miami Herald.

“Zika is a very serious public health threat. This information helps to highlight that the way we go about combating Zika and other vector-borne diseases needs to be thought out more completely in order to minimize other unintended consequences. For example, a focus on a more holistic integrated pest management approach may allow for the same or even improved effectiveness in reducing disease while using smaller amounts of these potentially harmful chemicals,” senior author John Meeker said in a university release.

U.S.-based naled manufacturer puzzled over recent findings

In response to the recent findings, a spokesman for Amvac, the U.S. manufacturer of the pesticide, noted that the company has no recorded transactions of selling naled in China. The spokesperson said the company was baffled by the result and stressed that the federal government has approved the pesticide for mosquito control for fifty years.

“We do not sell naled into China and have no idea how it may have been used or how much is applied. We cannot verify the validity of the China study, knowing nothing about the source of the product or how the population was selected. We recommend a measured, science-based reaction to the study, and look forward to its broader evaluation and peer review,” spokesman Brian Maddox said.

Naled has been used in several U.S. states since the 1960s. The pesticide is a form of organophosphate, a class of chemicals that houses other nerve agents such as sarin gas. The compound works by inhibiting an enzyme that facilitates the nerve signaling process. This, in turn, paralyzes insects and triggers respiratory failure. According to experts, the chemicals may adversely affect human health through other mechanisms at lower exposure levels. (Related: Zika insecticide being sprayed in Miami causes paralysis, cancer and death.)

Sources include:



Source Article from

Chemical pesticides, industrial pollution and ecological destruction causing sixth mass extinction on planet Earth

Image: Chemical pesticides, industrial pollution and ecological destruction causing sixth mass extinction on planet Earth

(Natural News)
A peer-reviewed analysis published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences classified this age as one of “biological annihilation” — one that has prompted the planet’s sixth mass extinction event. Scientists behind the study threaten that should no policies be made to address this issue now, we may soon be facing catastrophic biodiversity changes. Eschewing the typical sober and detached tone most scientific papers relish, the authors say that this biological annihilation is indicative of a “frightening assault on the foundations of human civilization,” as mentioned on

Co-author, Professor Gerardo Ceballos said, “the situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.”

Strong, indeed. Ceballos, along with Professors Paul Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, says this worldwide decimation of the animal and plant population underlines the “seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.” The team of three drew this conclusion after observing the rate in which animal and plant species have been dwindling for millennia. Previous research had already indicated a significantly faster rate of extinction, but always ended with implication of a gradual loss of biodiversity. Professor Ceballos expanded this assumption to include “common” species that were not known to be at risk along with determining the range in which these species were kept.

The scientists found that almost a third of thousands of animal species are losing population — though not enough to be classified as “endangered.” Moreover, around half of all individual animals have died out in only a few decades. Land mammals, it was further noted, had lost 80 percent of their range in the last century alone. This meant, according to their calculations, that billions of population of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals could be at risk of extinction in only two decades.

Likening the effect to a domino cascade, the scientists warn that the prospects for us and our survival do not look good. There remains time, they say, to halt the decline, but far too much damage to the environment has already been done. They attribute this annihilation to habitat destruction, toxic pollution, over-hunting, and most especially, over-consumption. Professor Elrich, who authored a controversial book in 1968 called, “The Population Bomb,” argued that maintaining a livable climate in which humans and nature coexist respectfully and comfortably will require great amounts of vigilance, diligence, and stricter diversity protection laws. He went on to say that current environmental practices are mere “band-aid” solutions to a bigger issue. (Related: ‘Mass extinction event’ across planet may have been unleashed by humans, scientists warn.)

Other scientists though temper the study’s conclusions. Professor Stuart Primm who was not involved in the research agreed with the findings but said that the idea of a sixth mass extinction event is not likely. “It is something that hasn’t happened yet — we are on the edge of it,” he said. Professor Primm said that the study highlights, in broad strokes, everything negative about biodiversity loss but does not acknowledge practices being made now to protect animal and plant life.

Robin Freeman, who helped publish an earlier paper which concluded 50 percent of individual animals have been lost since 1970, agreed that people should be made more aware of the loss of numerous animal species, but says that there is a fine but distinct line in which these facts should be given to people.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it cannot be denied that our planet has changed in a relatively short period of time.

Read more articles like this when you visit

Sources include: 1 2



Source Article from