Home

GMO’s: Invasive Species Council and USDA ignore environmental infection and contamination

33 Comments

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

___________________________________________

How can a mutated germ plasm be so vastly different that a patent can be obtained and, at the same time, be so substantially the same as the germ plasm it was derived from that it should be generally considered safe and unregulated?”  Someone?  Anyone?

_____________________________________________

The recent deregulation of genetically mutated bluegrass is the first domino to fall in the scheme to deregulate all gmo’s and to avoid having to label these disgusting creations so that consumers, many of whom are fully aware of the dangers of these products, can choose to avoid them.  The economic power wielded by consumers via their food dollars would quickly put an end to genetic modification, mutation and alteration. Therefore, regulation, control, liability for harm and damage along with labeling, must be avoided at all costs.

The reduction of biodiversity as a result of the infestation of transgenic plants and crops will cause the rise of monocultures where a single crop is grown in a region or, becomes the only crop that will grow wiping out any biodiversity and by necessity causing a rise in the use of pesticides and herbicides as insects and weeds alike develop a tolerance to genetically mutated seeds and chemical applications. This infestation and resulting contamination of food crops in particular, or those crops to be used for feeds and fuel should be treated for what they actually are: the equivalent of AIDS in the plant world.  

Transgenic crops are protected by fraudulent patents and will eventually be used to eradicate all rights to regional germ plasms.  The GATT agreement will facilitate the loss of the right of farmers in any given region to reproduce or save seed, and will prohibit the sharing of seed; exactly what is being implemented now. More

Ban on Milk Labeling Ruled Unconstitutional

Leave a comment

Live Link:  Food Safety News

by Helena Bottemiller | Oct 04, 2010

“This evidence precludes us from agreeing with the district court’s conclusion that there is no compositional difference between the two types of milk,” reads the opinion.

After more than two years of litigation, a federal court last week struck down an Ohio ban on labeling dairy products as “rbGH free,” “rbST free,” or “artificial hormone free” if produced by cows not treated with bovine growth hormone.   More

%d bloggers like this: