Thread: BASIC LIST / SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR LONG TERM SURVIVAL

Vitamin D Helps Prevent Cancer, Heart Disease, Depression and Much More

In the past, vitamin D was primarily regarded as an important nutrient for bone health, and it was conventionally thought that a person had enough vitamin D as long as they didn't have an obvious bone disease like rickets or osteomalacia.

But new research shows how wrong this assumption was, as higher levels of vitamin D are necessary to provide protection from more serious chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, infections, multiple sclerosis and more.

Vitamin D receptors are present in virtually every tissue and cell in your body, and the research is very impressive supporting its role in preventing:

Cancer	Hypertension	Heart disease
Autism	Obesity	Rheumatoid arthritis
Diabetes 1 and 2	Multiple Sclerosis	Crohn's disease
Cold & Flu	Inflammatory Bowel Disease	Tuberculosis
Septicemia	Signs of aging	Dementia
Eczema & Psoriasis	Insomnia	Hearing loss
Muscle pain	Cavities & Periodontal disease	Early puberty
Osteoporosis	Macular degeneration	Reduced C-section risk
Pre eclampsia	Seizures	Infertility
Asthma	Cystic fibrosis	Migraines
Depression	Alzheimer's disease	Schizophrenia

Sunlight or a Tanning Bed are Your Best Choices for Optimizing Vitamin D

Many are interested in the guidelines for vitamin D supplementation, but it’s important to realize that the IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is not by taking a pill, but rather allowing your body to do what it was designed to do—create vitamin D from sun exposure. This study however certainly provides some powerful support for the value of oral vitamin D.

However, there are a number of reasons that sunlight is better:

• It is more natural. Our ancestors optimized their vitamin D levels by sun exposure, not by swallowing it in foods. Although vitamin D is in some animal foods it is in relatively low quantities and to my knowledge there are no known ancestral populations that thrived on oral vitamin D sources.
• When you expose your skin to the sun, your skin also synthesizes high amounts of cholesterol sulfate, which is very important for cardiovascular health. In fact, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, believes that high LDL and associated heart disease may in fact be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency. Sulfur deficiency, in fact, also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes
• You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate production and only make what it needs

How Much Sun Exposure do You Need?

To optimize your levels, you need to expose large portions of your skin to the sun, and you need to do it for more than a few minutes. And, contrary to popular belief, the best time to be in the sun for vitamin D production is actually as near to solar noon as possible. During this time you need the shortest exposure time to produce vitamin D because UVB rays are most intense at this time. Plus, when the sun goes down toward the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the dangerous UVA.

Just be cautious about the length of your exposure. You only need enough exposure to have your skin turn the lightest shade of pink. Once you reach this point your body will not make any additional vitamin D due to its self-regulating mechanism. Any additional exposure will only cause harm and damage to your skin.

Unfortunately, studies have shown only about 30 percent of Americans' circulating vitamin D is the product of sunlight exposure.

Continued Below

This is a byproduct of public health agencies' misguided advice to stay out of the sun to avoid cancer (when in fact vitamin D from sun exposure will actually help prevent it). If you can’t get out in the sun, a safe tanning bed is the next best option. Safe tanning beds have electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, which help you avoid unnecessary exposure to health-harming EMF fields. They also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight.

The Latest Vitamin D Supplementation Guidelines



If neither sun exposure nor safe tanning beds are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement if your levels are low. It will definitely be better than no vitamin D at all.

There is no one-size-fits-all dosage level at which "magic" happens, but based on the most recent research by GrassrootsHealth—an organization that has greatly contributed to the current knowledge on vitamin D through their D* Action Study—it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml. This is significantly higher than previously recommended!

For children, many experts agree they need about 35 IU's of vitamin D per pound of body weight.

At the time GrassrootsHealth performed the studies that resulted in this increased dosage recommendation, the optimal serum level was believed to be between 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml, as illustrated in the chart below.

What this means is that even if you do not regularly monitor your vitamin D levels (which you should), your risk of overdosing is going to be fairly slim, even if you take as much as 8,000 IU's a day. However, the only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested regularly, and adjust your dosage to maintain that optimal zone.
Remember, unless you get a deep dark tan, which is a pretty good indicator that your vitamin D levels are where they need to be, it is wise to get your blood levels checked -- that is the only way to know for certain you have reached therapeutic levels.

Make Sure You Get the Correct Vitamin D Test

Knowing your vitamin D level can be a life-altering piece of information, which is why it’s so important to make sure your results are accurate.

There are two vitamin D tests -- 1,25(OH)D and 25(OH)D -- but 25(OH)D is the better marker of overall D status. It is this marker that is most strongly associated with overall health, and it is the one you should ask your physician for.

Your physician can order this blood test for you, or, alternatively, you can have your vitamin D levels tested right in your own home by joining the GrassrootsHealth D* Action Study. D*Action is a worldwide public health campaign which aims to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic through focusing on testing, education, and grassroots word of mouth.

When you join D*action, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year program, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $60.00 fee + $5.00 shipping each 6 months for your sponsorship of the 5-year project, which includes a complete new test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.

You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey." To join now, please follow this link to the sign up form.

Source: American Journal of Cardiology November 10, 2011Related Links:

This Vitamin D Supplement Mistake Raises Your Death Rate by 2% -- Are You at Risk?

The Surprising Cause of Melanoma (And No, it's Not Too Much Sun)

How to Get Your Vitamin D Within to Healthy Ranges

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...DNL_artTest_B2

Your Milk on Drugs

The Dangers of rBGH in Dairy Products

See Jeffrey Smith’s 3-part blog on Huffington Post called
Get Our Milk off Drugs

Pt - 1 Kansas Labelling Battle

Pt 2 - FDA Failures

Pt 3 - Fox News Intimidated

Although banned in most other industrialized nations due to the health risks to humans and harm to the animals, Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) is still injected into dairy cows in the US to increase milk-production.
So why was rBGH approved for use in the US? The approval of rBGH in our country is a story of fired whistleblowers, manipulated research, and a corporate takeover of the US Food and Drug Administration. US dairies responding to the health concerns of consumers by not injecting their herds, now battle with Monsanto for their right to label their milk as rBGH-free. For those familiar with the history of this controversial drug, and Monsanto, this is no surprise. Monsanto’s controversial past is plagued with toxic disasters, lawsuits and cover-ups.

Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
Own this eye-opening documentary on the hazards of milk containing rBGH which includes footage from a
news series prepared for a Florida Fox TV station canceled after they received a letter from
Monsanto’s attorney threatening “dire consequences.The Health Hazards in Milk from Cows injected with rBGH

Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Milk from rBGH-treated cows with its heightened IGF-1 levels also likely increases the rate of fraternal twin births in humans. In the United States, the number of fraternal twins grew at twice the rate as that in the United Kingdom, where rBGH is banned.

Milk from cows injected with rBGH also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders. Cows given rBGH experience higher rates of mastitis, a painful udder infection. When treated with antibiotics that are also used for people, bacteria resistant to these antibiotics end up in the milk, air, soil and water, resulting in increased antibiotic resistance in humans, a major health problem.

Labels that Lie

Within the US, many school systems have banned milk products from injected cows and dairies have refused to inject their cow with it. But a milk carton from Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy stating, “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones” became the subject of controversy when on July 3, 2003 the dairy was sued by Monsanto over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled, agreeing to add a sentence saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [rBGH]-treated and non- treated cows. But it’s a statement that is not true. Both Monsanto and FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Higher amounts of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk were noted are as well. This misleading addition to the label was written by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto’s outside attorney who, after running policy at the FDA, became vice president of Monsanto. Could this revolving door between Monsanto and the government regulators (i.e. the movement from positions as biotech leaders to government policymaker and back again) be the one of the reasons why the FDA isn’t protecting US consumers?

Bribes, Fired Scientists and Corporate Hijacking of the FDA and Health Canada

In the late 1980s, one FDA scientist was fired after expressing concerns about possible health problems related rBGH-treated cows. Other like-minded FDA scientists at the FDA had been stripped of responsibilities or forced out. Remaining FDA whistle-blowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency. In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before their Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rBGH, even though they believed it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug. Monsanto responded to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) story about the alleged bribe, claiming that the scientists misunderstood an offer for research money. (Eventually in 2005, Monsanto was fined for offering bribes to 140 Indonesians, as the company tried to gain approval for their genetically modified cotton.)

Muscling the Media—Fox News Intimidated

In 1989, Monsanto’s PR firm created “the Dairy Coalition,” a group that included researchers funded by Monsanto, to pressure editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to stop reporting on the health concerns about rBGH.



continued below

The potential link between rBGH and cancer was one of the topics revealed in a four-part news series set to air in February of 1997 by a Tampa-based Fox TV station. Just before the series was to air, however, Fox received threatening letters from Monsanto’s attorney, threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.” The show was postponed indefinitely. The reporters who had created the series later testified that they were offered hush money to leave the station and never speak about the story again. They declined. Read the full detail in this exerpt from Jeffrey Smith's Seeds of Deception.

Progress and New Battles

Over the past few years, several organizations have worked to raise awareness of the rBGH issue, such as the Campaign For Safe Food launched by the Oregon Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Getting attention to the rBGH issue was slow at first, but by educating consumers about the health dangers associated with rBGH and producers making rBGH-free brands readily available, we have seen a widespread consumer demand for rBGH free dairy products. Within the last two years, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rBGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue.
Having failed to gain a complete ban on "rBGH-free" labeling from the FDA, Monsanto has now gone to the state level by claiming the labels are an "unfair restraint of trade" even with the FDA disclaimer. Also, in an effort to turn public opinion their way, Monsanto has been trying to promote rBGH as having a positive effect on the environment. Of course their position is based on the “bad science” that they have perfected. The reality is that rBGH is anything but green.

The Next Big Consumer Tidal Wave Will be the Complete Rejection of Remaining
GMOs in Food Products, and You Can be a Part of It

The market rejection of rBGH demonstrates that consumers are still at the top of the food chain, dictating the direction of this fight. We expect to see the same tipping point kick GM foods out of the US food supply. Almost 87 million consumers in the United States believe that all GM foods aren’t safe, but can’t always avoid them because they don’t know how. By directing the purchasing power of the tens of millions of health-conscious shoppers, we can reach a new tipping point and push GMOs out of the entire food supply.
Here are a couple of things you can do to help. First, view the rBGH free dairy products section of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and share this with friends. Then, sign on to participate in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and you will join the swell that is rising out of the natural food aisles and building into tidal wave of GMO rejection throughout the entire food industry. Adding your name to the Campaign’s growing list of supporters not only addresses you and your family’s health concerns, but also influences the decisions of food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers nationwide.

Finally, we invite you to have house party showings of the new film, The World According to Monsanto, which is a part of a packaged two DVD set that includes Your Milk on Drugs-Just Say No! The World According to Monsanto, takes a hard look at Monsanto’s campaign of deception and use of coercive tactics to gain market supremacy. A showing of these two films together is sure to motivate every viewer to take steps to stop GMOs.

http://yourmilkondrugs.com/

Why Many Vitamin Studies are Absolutely Worthless


Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
December 27, 2011

Does vitamin E naturally help protect against the effects of aging, or does it lead to liver damage and complications associated with lung cancer? Well, it depends on what the study authors want to tell you. The synthetic version of vitamin E is a petrochemically derived analogue of natural vitamin E that is capable of disrupting the endocrine system, whereas the natural form of vitamin E is effective against aging, oxidative stress, and hundreds of other conditions. The truth of the matter is that many — if not most — of vitamin studies are completely worthless, as they use isolated synthetic vitamins or low quality multivitamin supplements loaded with toxic fillers and synthetic ingredients.
Study authors could use high quality food-based multivitamins without any fillers or harmful ingredients, but they generally do not. Whether this is due to nutritional ignorance regarding the true nature of the pharmaceutical company-dominated supplement industry (think highly-popular Centrum, which we will soon discuss) or the fact that these researchers truly think that essential nutrients are damaging to your health, the fact of the matter is that very few studies utilize the right form of vitamins.

Synthetic and Carcinogenic Ingredients, Not Real Vitamins

When analyzing the ingredients within Centrum, the number one top selling vitamin brand, it is easy to see how studies can so easily tote the dangers of ‘vitamins’ when in reality they are actually exposing the dangers of synthetic ingredients and fillers that are known to damage your body. It should be no surprise to you that Centrum is produced by the Wyeth company, which is now a part of Pfizer. Here are some of the ingredients contained in the top selling multivitamin Centrum, along with their adverse effects:

• BHT: a fat soluble compound used in jet fuels, rubber, petroleum products, electrical transformer oil, and embalming fluid. Research has linked BHT to lung cancer, bladder cancer, DNA damage, and gastric cancer.

• Boric Acid: a chemical oftentimes used as an antiseptic, insecticide, or flame retardant. Found to cause DNA damage.

• Synthetic Vitamin A Acetate: a petrochemically produced byproduct that is capable of causing birth defects.

• Cupric Sulfate: Used as an herbicide, fungicide and pesticide, copper sulfate is produced by treating copper metal with hot concentrated sulfuric acid or its oxides with sulfuric acid.

These are only some of the toxic ingredients contained in Centrum, ingested by countless consumers worldwide who think they are improving their health. Is it any wonder why any scientific studies conducted using this health-wrecking multivitamin would produce scary results? The most concerning fact of the matter is that Centrum is held in high regard by many traditional doctors and health officials, who not only recommend it to their patients but would most likely consider it the ‘gold standard’ of the multivitamin industry. This means that scientists looking to examine the effects of multivitamin use would be more inclined to choose this brand.

Even if it isn’t Centrum, the vast majority of multivitamin supplements contain synthetic ingredients, toxic fillers, and other unwanted ingredients.

The result of all of these studies using low quality supplements is simple: bad press on vitamins as a whole, as the authors fail to correctly distinguish the difference between low quality and high quality supplements. As a response, people are scared to take legitimately healthy multivitamins or health supplements, or think that all vitamins are the same or threaten their health with products like Centrum.

There is a large difference between synthetic and natural vitamins, and there is a large difference between high quality and low quality supplements. Ideally you want to avoid fillers, synthetic ingredients, and toxic additives. In addition to the harmful ingredients listed, look out for sodium benzoate, sodium molybdate, titanium dioxide, hydrogenated palm oil, citric acid, calcium stearate, potassium chloride, calcium carbonate, and other unnecessary and potentially damaging ingredients.Taking a high quality food-based multivitamin is optimal, preferably made with 100% organic ingredients or superfoods.

It’s time that the truth be told concerning vitamin studies and the deception that goes along with them.

Explore More:

1. NSI Synergy 3000 Multivitamin Review
2. 4 Dangerous and Common Vitamin Fillers You Must Avoid
3. Powerful Vitamin Protects Against Colon Cancer
4. Why Everyone Should Supplement with Vitamin D
5. Consumers Tricked into Buying Toxic Supplements as Sales Soar
6. A Vitamin D Deficiency Could be to Blame for Depressive Winter Months

http://naturalsociety.com/why-many-v...ely-worthless/

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

Katherine Goldstein/Gazelle Emami
First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET
Updated: 05/25/11 04:10 PM ET



In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....

These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_420365.html

Fluoride Supplements Shown to Have No Benefits, Only Dangers

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
December 21, 2011

Fluoride is being added to water supplies around the world in the name of cavity prevention and enhanced tooth health. At the same time, fluoride supplements are being recommended to those who don’t have the “luxury” of a fluoridated water supply. And while there is already a great deal of previous research available showing the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoride, even more research has surfaced revealing its lack of necessity.

CDC Ignores Evidence Surrounding Fluoride

Recent research conducted by the Cochrane Oral Health Group has yet again shown that fluoride supplements are ineffective at reducing tooth decay in primary teeth. Not only that, but health risks from fluoride supplementation aren’t even studied enough for the supplements to be pushed in the first place. It was found that fluoride supplements, which are heavily endorsed by the CDC, provide no more benefit than topical treatments, which are thought to be a little bit safer by many due to minimal fluoride ingestion.

One review from 2008 found in the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that fluoride supplements provide no benefit to primary teeth, and ironically only cause mild or severe dental fluorosis. But while dental fluorosis is concerning, it is just one minor problem when compared to the many serious health issues fluoride induces. Belgium has even stopped selling fluoride supplements in 2002 due to fluoride causing physical and neurological harm while at the same time providing little to no benefit to teeth. Interestingly enough, vitamin D has actually been found to be better than fluoride at cavity prevention, with documentation demonstrating the effect of natural sunlight exposure on dental health going as far back as the Civil War.
Over 72 percent of Americans drink water treated with fluoride and a large majority of the nation has been consuming this poison for years. It is unfortunate to see the government pushing a substance on the population that has even been linked to lowering the IQ of children while also giving people cancer. Countries around the world also recognize these dangers, and therefore reject water fluoridation. Luckily, many U.S. states are progressively moving away from fluoridated water as research continues to come out on the subject. Even if fluoride was beneficial to teeth, the damage it does to the body would logically be a priority over increased tooth health.

Explore More:

1. Government Calls for Lower Fluoride Levels and Admits it Harms Children
2. Vitamin D Better than Fluoride at Cavity Prevention
3. Water Fluoridation War | Government Admits Dangers, Experts Speak Out
4. Scientists Uncover Truth About Fluoride and Other Water Contaminants
5. Consumers Tricked into Buying Toxic Supplements as Sales Soar
6. Toxic Tap Water: Chemical Laden Water Tied to a Number of Life Threatening Diseases

http://naturalsociety.com/fluoride-supplements-no-benefits-only-dangers/

Because of the new program it will take me awhile to straighten this out... allot of info was lost; but I will try to reconstruct it over time

Bugs may be resistant to genetically modified corn

Article by: RICK CALLAHAN , Associated Press

One of the nation's most widely planted crops — a genetically engineered corn plant that makes its own insecticide — may be losing its effectiveness because a major pest appears to be developing resistance more quickly than scientists expected.

The U.S. food supply is not in any immediate danger because the problem remains isolated. But scientists fear potentially risky farming practices could be blunting the hybrid's sophisticated weaponry.

When it was introduced in 2003, so-called Bt corn seemed like the answer to farmers' dreams: It would allow growers to bring in bountiful harvests using fewer chemicals because the corn naturally produces a toxin that poisons western corn rootworms. The hybrid was such a swift success that it and similar varieties now account for 65 percent of all U.S. corn acres — grain that ends up in thousands of everyday foods such as cereal, sweeteners and cooking oil.

But over the last few summers, rootworms have feasted on the roots of Bt corn in parts of four Midwestern states, suggesting that some of the insects are becoming resistant to the crop's pest-fighting powers.

Scientists say the problem could be partly the result of farmers who've planted Bt corn year after year in the same fields.

Most farmers rotate corn with other crops in a practice long used to curb the spread of pests, but some have abandoned rotation because they need extra grain for livestock or because they have grain contracts with ethanol producers. Other farmers have eschewed the practice to cash in on high corn prices, which hit a record in June.

"Right now, quite frankly, it's very profitable to grow corn," said Michael Gray, a University of Illinois crop sciences professor who's tracking Bt corn damage in that state.

A scientist recently sounded an alarm throughout the biotech industry when he published findings concluding that rootworms in a handful of Bt cornfields in Iowa had evolved an ability to survive the corn's formidable defenses.

Similar crop damage has been seen in parts of Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska, but researchers are still investigating whether rootworms capable of surviving the Bt toxin were the cause.

University of Minnesota entomologist Kenneth Ostlie said the severity of rootworm damage to Bt fields in Minnesota has eased since the problem surfaced in 2009. Yet reports of damage have become more widespread, and he fears resistance could be spreading undetected because the damage rootworms inflict often isn't apparent.

Without strong winds, wet soil or both, plants can be damaged at the roots but remain upright, concealing the problem. He said the damage he observed in Minnesota came to light only because storms in 2009 toppled corn plants with damaged roots.
"The analogy I often use with growers is that we're looking at an iceberg and all we see is the tip of the problem," Ostlie said. "And it's a little bit like looking at an iceberg through fog because the only time we know we have a problem is when we get the right weather conditions."

Seed maker Monsanto Co. created the Bt strain by splicing a gene from a common soil organism called Bacillus thuringiensis into the plant. The natural insecticide it makes is considered harmless to people and livestock.

Scientists always expected rootworms to develop some resistance to the toxin produced by that gene. But the worrisome signs of possible resistance have emerged sooner than many expected.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently chided Monsanto, declaring in a Nov. 22 report that it wasn't doing enough to monitor suspected resistance among rootworm populations. The report urged a tougher approach, including expanding monitoring efforts to a total of seven states, including Colorado, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The agency also wanted to ensure farmers in areas of concern begin using insecticides and other methods to combat possible resistance.

Monsanto insists there's no conclusive proof that rootworms have become immune to the crop, but the company said it regards the situation seriously and has been taking steps that are "directly in line" with federal recommendati
ons.

Some scientists fear it could already be too late to prevent the rise of resistance, in large part because of the way some farmers have been planting the crop.

They point to two factors: farmers who have abandoned crop rotation and others have neglected to plant non-Bt corn within Bt fields or in surrounding fields as a way to create a "refuge" for non-resistant rootworms in the hope they will mate with resistant rootworms and dilute their genes.

Experts worry that the actions of a few farmers could jeopardize an innovation that has significantly reduced pesticide use and saved growers billions of dollars in lost yields and chemical-control costs.
"This is a public good that should be protected for future generations and not squandered too quickly," said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science and Public Policy.

Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann published research in July concluding that resistance had arisen among rootworms he collected in four Iowa fields. Those fields had been planted for three to six straight years with Bt corn — a practice that ensured any resistant rootworms could lay their eggs in an area that would offer plenty of food for the next generation.

For now, the rootworm resistance in Iowa appears isolated, but Gassmann said that could change if farmers don't quickly take action. For one, the rootworm larvae grow into adult beetles that can fly, meaning resistant beetles could easily spread to new areas.

"I think this provides an important early warning," Gassmann said.

Besides rotating crops, farmers can also fight resistance by switching between Bt corn varieties, which produce different toxins, or planting newer varieties with multiple toxins. They can also treat damaged fields with insecticides to kill any resistant rootworms — or employ a combination of all those approaches.

The EPA requires growers to devote 20 percent of their fields to non-Bt corn. After the crop was released in 2003, nine out of 10 farmers met that standard. Now it's only seven or eight, Jaffe said.

Seed companies are supposed to cut off farmers with a record of violating the planting rules, which are specified in seed-purchasing contracts. To improve compliance, companies are now introducing blends that have ordinary seed premixed with Bt seed.
Brian Schaumburg, who farms 1,400 acres near the north-central Illinois town of Chenoa, plants as much Bt corn as he can every spring.

But Schaumburg said he shifts his planting strategies every year — varying which Bt corn hybrids he plants and using pesticides when needed — to reduce the chances rootworm resistance might emerge in his fields.

Schaumburg said he always plants the required refuge fields and believes very few farmers defy the rule. Those who do put the valuable crop at risk, he said.
"If we don't do it right, we could lose these good tools," Schaumberg said.

If rootworms do become resistant to Bt corn, it "could become the most economically damaging example of insect resistance to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona. "It's a pest of great economic significance — a billion-dollar pest."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/13...1&c=y#continue

Government to government plan to seize control of all foods

December 29, 2011 by ppjg
Marti Oakley © 2011 All Rights Reserved
Shortly after “Dirty Harry” Reid passed the fake food safety bill in here in the US, with his one unanimous vote, C-36 passed two weeks later in Canada. Both bills were an outright attack on individual rights and property rights as both governments claim they now have the authority to unilaterally decide who can grow, process and sell foods and under what conditions. And, just as here in the US, those lawmakers responsible for this attack on liberty claimed they did so because that was what the public demanded and was begging for.

Actually, in both countries just the opposite was true; the public was demanding that these bills not be passed. Dirty Harry claimed that more than 10,000 people had begged him to pass the bill while never mentioning that more than a million had objected. But in neither case was food safety and security the real intent of the legislation. Both the US and Canada were handing agricultural production in all its forms, over to international organizations and multi-national corporations.

A sample of the unconstitutional restrictions included in bill C-36 include:

- abolishing protection from trespass, a court-ordered warrant, and the need for court-supervised search and seizure;

- on ONLY suspicion, health inspectors with the aid of police can invade any location in the country, seize and confiscate goods deemed unsafe (i.e. health supplements) and violate all constitutional rights of all parties involved
- it bypasses existing laws on privacy and confidentiality and explicitly exempts the Minister of Health and government inspectors from any kind of third-party oversight and accountability;

**Note: In the US the Secretary of Health & Human Services and any of her delegates were given the same immunity, and US citizens were denied their right to access the courts for redress.
- the need to publish regulations governing the activities of the inspectors is abolished, too;

- accused individuals have their access to the courts seriously limited, even the assumption of innocence is gone as violators are considered guilty until proven innocent with no recourse to any court of law.

- astronomical fines are to be handed out for crimes committed on the Minister’s assumption of guilt which requires no supporting evidence for independent examination;

- even the corporate shield would disappear, because corporate directors would be legally liable for the actions of their employees -; which actions would be deemed criminal solely on the opinion of the Minister, not by the courts;
Note: The US fake food safety bill differs in that it intentionally relieves corporations and most especially their employees and officers of any liability, allowing them to hide behind the corporate entity.

-this bill allows foreign governments and institutions, like CODEX and the World Trade Organization, to have the same powers over Canadians in all these matters outlined above, as if they were part of our own government.

Here in the US, with our government officials openly advocating and soliciting for multi-national corporate takeover of food production and supply and with opposition to this takeover marginalized and ignored, we have little chance of effectively thwarting the assault on agricultural production that is looming in the future. Canada appears to be following suit and is subjecting its citizens to World Trade Organization rules and regulations and openly advocating the takeover of food production in all its forms by industrialized operations which are more than willing to keep HSD and its corrupt partnering agencies awash in contracted funding.

Money talks and in our government agencies and offices it is virtually the only voice that is listened to.

Homeland Security, that bastion of domestic spies, paranoid fanatics and otherwise unemployable misfits has now come out with what it terms “natural security”. Under this umbrella of a newly created faux security system, food is now determined to be “at risk” and must be protected by arbitrary rules, regulations and oppressive enforcement because otherwise agricultural terrorists from parts unknown, neither identified nor identifiable, might somehow contaminate our food. Never mind that our food is constantly contaminated by bio-piracy outfits in their efforts to seize and control through highly suspect patented ownership of virtually anything and everything we might wish to eat.
Natural Security is a fictionally created model meant to do nothing other than to make HSD interference and meddling in food production seem to be somehow plausible.

The US fake food safety bill also added in its last pages the admonishment that nothing in the bill would interfere with World Trade Organization demands or agreements nor could it interfere with any free trade agreements present or future and also makes clear that WTO demands would supersede our laws and sovereignty.

With Canada now in line with US laws facilitating the takeover and control of food supply and production, it comes as no surprise that New Zealand, a highly productive agricultural economy, is next in line.

http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/12/29...-of-all-foods/