Total Pageviews

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Consumer Self-Defense: 12 Ways to Drive GMOs and Roundup off the Market (Re-Post)

Lots of news to report, dear readers - to begin, Monsanto is suffering from some really bad PR, as is McDonalds.

Guess what, purveyors of FrankenFoods and other crap...we're NOT "lovin it".

I will have more to say on the subject, but for now, I leave you with this re-post from Organic Consumers, and remember to support your local farmers and green markets!

Consumer Self-Defense: 12 Ways to Drive GMOs and Roundup off the Market


"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." - New York Times, Oct. 25, 1998
"[GMO] Labeling advocates say the issue is about transparency, not safety. Scott Faber, head of the national Just Label It campaign, testified that consumers want to know what they are buying and how the food was produced. He said advocates are not seeking a warning label, but a “factual, non-judgemental disclosure” on the back of all food packages that contain GMO ingredients.”  Mary Clare Jalonic, Associated Press, December 14, 2014
“Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's flagship herbicide, Roundup. 80% of GMO crops are engineered to withstand Roundup and GMO crops now make up 90% of the United State's corn, soy, sugar, canola, and cottonseed. Roundup is also used as a desiccant (drying agent) at harvest on 160 conventional crops. It is in our soil, in our food, and in our bodies.” GMO Free Lancaster County

“… Monsanto literature regarding Roundup encourages… farmers to apply… Roundup applications on many crops – including wheat, feed barley, oats, canola, flax, peas, lentils, and dry beans – right before harvest….” WashingtonsBlog, November 17, 2014
The technology of agricultural genetic engineering (GE) is the controversial practice of gene-splicing and disrupting the genetic blueprints of plants and trees in a lab, to produce patented seeds. The seeds are generally one of two types. One type, which includes Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops, produces plants that survive the spraying of poisons, while all the other plants around them die. The other type produces a plant that manufactures its own pest-killing poison, designed to target a specific pest.
Contrary to what some in the biotech industry and the media claim, genetic engineering of plants is not the same thing as selective breeding, or hybridization. Genetic modification involves inserting foreign genetic material (DNA) into an organism. Selective breeding does not.
For two decades, Monsanto and its cohorts (Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF) have been randomly inserting the genes of one species into a non-related species, or genetically “interfering” with the instructions of an organism’s RNA—utilizing viruses, antibiotic-resistant genes and bacteria as vectors, markers and promoters—to create gene-spliced seeds and crops. Through clever marketing, they’ve captured the loyalty of North America’s (and many other nations’) chemical-intensive farmers, grain traders and Junk Food corporations. Fortunately, in the 28 member states of the European Union, where GMOs must be labeled and independently safety-tested, there are little or no GMO crops planted, and few GMO foods or food ingredients on supermarket shelves or restaurant menus.
Although Monsanto, industry scientists and corporate agribusiness claim that GMO crops and foods, and the chemicals that accompany them, are perfectly safe and therefore need no labeling or independent safety-testing, hundreds of independent scientists, that is, those not on the payroll of Monsanto or its minions, cite literally hundreds of studies showing that GMOs and their companion chemicals, such as Roundup, are extremely toxic.
Self-appointed GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) labeling “leaders” such as Scott Faber of the Just Label It campaign (a former lobbyist for the pro-GMO Grocery Manufacturers Association) need to stop repeating Monsanto and Big Food’s lies that there is no “evidence” that GMOs are dangerous for human health or the environment. As Faber stated at a Congressional Hearing on December 10, 2014:
“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…”
Given the current barrage of pro-GMO propaganda in the mass media, “GMO-Free” proponents need to put far greater emphasis on the fact that it isn’t just the imprecise and unpredictable nature of gene-splicing itself—a process that produces toxin and allergens, and shuts down essential gene functions—that threatens human health and the environment. The billions of pounds of systemic toxic pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides), especially Roundup, that are used on GMO and so-called conventional crops, are equally, if not more, hazardous to human health and the environment.
These systemic agro-toxins, for the most part, cannot be washed off before eating. These biocides end up on our dinner plates and in our drinking water. They lodge in our bodies and in the bodies of our children, slowly but surely degrading our health and killing us. The world needs a food and farming system that is organic, climate-friendly and regenerative, one that is free of pesticides, animal drugs and chemical fertilizers—not one that is merely GMO-free.
GMOs—Just as ‘safe’ as toxic ‘conventional’ foods
When Monsanto, the FDA, or the Biotechnology Industry Organization are asked whether GMO-tainted foods are safe, notice that they always say that GMOs as “just as safe” as “conventional” (i.e. chemical and drug-tainted) foods, and pose no “unique” risks to human health or the environment. In a twisted sense they are right, because both GMO and non-GMO chemical-intensive, factory-farmed crops and foods are dangerous. They all destroy public health, animal health, soil health, the environment and contribute to global warming.
GMOs and Roundup, neonicotinoids, 2,4 D, atrazine, glufosinate, and dicamba—and all the other chemicals being sprayed on the food that we eat, and ultimately running off into water that we drink—are poison. The major reason chronic diseases like cancer, autism, diabetes and obesity, along with reproductive, behavioral, endocrine and immune system disorders, are spiraling out of control is that our environment is toxic, and we are ingesting, from the womb, to the hospital, to the grave—poisoned, pesticide-laden food.
Certainly we want mandatory labeling of GMOs at the state level (the feds are obviously too corrupt to trust on GMO labeling). But the main reason we want labeling is to defend ourselves, our families and the environment from further assault—by boycotting and driving GMO food, animal feed (most GMOs go into animal feed and biofuels, not human food), and Roundup off the market. This means that organic and grass-fed or pasture-based foods must move from being 5 percent of the market to becoming the dominant force in U.S. food and farming, as soon as possible. To achieve this, we need to boycott not just GMO foods, but all chemically contaminated foods, including factory farmed GMO-fed meat and animal products, and foods from crops sprayed with Roundup “pre-harvest,” not just in the U.S., but globally as well.
Fifteen years ago I wrote a book with Ben Lilliston on the alarming hazards of genetically engineered foods and crops: Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. Even then, it was obvious that out-of-control agro-toxic corporations like Monsanto (producers of aspartame, Agent Orange, DDT, dioxin, and PCBs) were not really interested in increasing yields, producing healthier food or reducing pesticide use—even though they made, and continue to make, these fraudulent claims ad nauseum. What Monsanto was, and is, really up to is maximizing the sales, by any means possible, of their proprietary herbicides (Roundup, dicamba), insecticides (Bt), seeds (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) and animal drugs (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone or rBGH, now owned by Elanco).
Already in 1989, scores of consumers had been killed, and thousands permanently injured after they ingested a heretofore-safe over-the-counter nutritional supplement called L-tryptophan, which for the first time had been laced with genetically engineered enzymes. Although the FDA tried to cover up the deadly consequences of this first product of genetic engineering, the Japanese pharmaceutical company, Showa Denka, which manufactured the genetically engineered supplement, ended up paying out $2 billion to the consumers it had poisoned.
In 1994, Monsanto’s minions in the FDA (including Monsanto lawyer, and later Obama Food Czar, Michael Taylor) forced onto the market the controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH was marketed to dairy farmers who injected the hormone into dairy cows to force them to produce more milk. It was brought to market, despite mounting evidence of increased antibiotic resistance and cancer risks, and over the objections of the General Accounting Office (Congress’ watchdog agency), and the Consumers Union, the Cancer Prevention Coalition and the Pure Food Campaign. Although approved for sale in the U.S., rBGH was subsequently banned in Europe, Canada, and most industrialized nations.
A few years later, a gene-spliced soybean patented by Pioneer Hybrid, designed as an “improved” animal feed which would be planted on millions of acres, was pulled from production when scientists realized that it would set off deadly allergies in humans who unwittingly ingested the Brazil nut-spliced soybeans.
Also in 1996-98, as soon as Monsanto’s genetically engineered, “Roundup- Resistant,” soybeans, corn, canola and cotton hit the market—over the objections of independent scientists, environmentalists, and food safety experts—the use, contamination and residues on food of this toxic herbicide began to skyrocket.
Pesticides and flawed, industry-manufactured ‘science
Genetic engineering corporations and their indentured journalists, scientists and government bureaucrats have proclaimed since 1992 that their mutant GMO foods and animal feeds—and the toxic chemicals used along with them—are perfectly safe, basing their claims on 1,700 (Monsanto’s current number) so-called “scientific studies.”
Of course the problem with these Monsanto-endorsed studies “proving” that GMOs and Roundup are safe is that they are typically industry-funded, distorted, short-term, typically non-peer-reviewed, and commonly omitting or hiding crucial data as “proprietary.” In addition to ignoring the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in the public domain that clearly show damage from GMOs or Roundup, many of the 1700 studies purporting to prove the safety of GMOs actually do show harm.
When pro-GMO scientists look at the safety of GMO foods, 80 percent of which are heavily sprayed with Roundup, they typically look only narrowly at the “active” ingredient in Roundup, ignoring the chemical breakdown agent or metabolite AMPA, which is linked to liver disease, and the highly toxic “inert” ingredients in the herbicide, including: ammonium sulfate, benzisothiazolone, glycerine, isobutene, isopropylamine, polyethoxylated alkylamines, polyethoxilated, tallowamine, and POE-15.
As André Leu points out in his critically-acclaimed recent book, “The Myths of Safe Pesticides:”
“There are numerous studies that show that Roundup is more toxic than its active ingredient, glyphosate. These studies link the pesticide to a range of health problems such as cancer, placental cell damage, miscarriages, stillbirths, endocrine disruption, and damage to various organs such as the kidney and the liver… [inert ingredients in pesticides] amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their AP [active ingredient].” – “The Myths of Safe Pesticides,” p. 11, Acres USA, 2014).
In addition to ignoring the dangers of Roundup’s metabolites and “inert” ingredients, industry-sponsored scientists overlook the fact that multiple pesticide residues are routinely found on most (non-organic) GMO and “conventional” foods—and that these multiple-residue chemical cocktails are often far more toxic, even in tiny doses, than the pesticide being studied.
As Leu states:
“The ever increasing body of peer-reviewed science shows that the current methodology of only testing the active ingredient as a single agent and not testing common combinations is flawed and insufficient to determine the safety of chemical exposure in a real world situation where humans are exposed to daily cocktails of chemicals.” – “The Myths of Safe Pesticides,” p. 8).
In allowing supposedly safe “maximum residue limits” and “average daily intake” (ADI) levels of toxic poisons like Roundup in our food and water, government regulators are recklessly ignoring the fact that most (non-organic) foods today, GMO and non-GMO alike, are being sprayed with Roundup, either as an herbicide or a pre-harvest desiccant. The nearly omnipresent accumulation of these Roundup residues in produce, processed foods, meat and animal products (unless they are organic) is extremely hazardous, causing birth defects, gene mutations, chromosomal aberrations and cancer. They destroy our essential gastrointestinal biome (gut) health by killing off the beneficial microorganisms and bacteria in our stomach and promoting the “bad” microorganisms that can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, and Alzheimers. (“The Myths of Safe Pesticides,” pp.69-70).
Moreover Monsanto and the pesticide industry conveniently hide the fact that hormone receptors in human body cells often “misidentify” tiny parts-per-billion, or even parts-per-trillion, of pesticides as if they are human hormones, converting these pesticide residues into potent and deadly hormone disruptors. In other words, there really is no “safe limit” for Roundup or other pesticide residues in human food, animal feed, municipal drinking water or breast milk.
Even though the government claims that it is using sound science to determine “safe” residue levels of pesticides such as Monsanto’s Roundup, a USDA official recently admitted to a Reuters reporter that they are not even testing for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup:
“As has been the case with past analyses, the USDA said it did not test this past year for residues of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide and the world's most widely used herbicide. A USDA spokesman who asked not to be quoted said that the test measures required for glyphosate are ‘extremely expensive... to do on a regular basis’...”
When the FDA sends out a letter to Monsanto (or Dow, Dupont, Syngenta or any other biotech company) approving the commercialization of a new GMO, they basically admit that they, the FDA, have not conducted their own independent studies on the GMO, but rather are accepting the studies submitted by the company as proof of efficacy and safety.
As Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union pointed out in his testimony to the American Medical Association on March 19, 2012:
“The lack of adequate safety testing can be seen in the letter FDA sends to the company after completion of a ‘safety consultation.’ For example, the letter sent to Monsanto on September 25, 1996, about one of their first Bt-corn varieties, MON810, states, ‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn, grain, and forage derived from the new variety are not materially different in composition, safety of other relevant parameters from corn, grain, and forage currently on the market, and that they do not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA.’ Note that FDA does not state its own opinion about the safety of this crop; it only states what the company believes. The letters for all 84 ‘safety consultations’ done since the Flavr Savr tomato [1994] contain basically the same language. This clearly shows that the FDA does not conduct safety assessments.”
Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby have incessantly proclaimed, with little or no evidence whatsoever, that these controversial crops and foods will reduce pesticide use, eliminate world hunger, cure disease, mitigate climate change and vastly improve public health. However, a close look at their actual business practices, sales figures, political lobbying and bullying in court (suing hundreds of farmers for the “crime” of saving seeds) reveal Monsanto’s true goals: to monopolize the global market for seeds, foods and fiber, and to sell as many toxic herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides as possible.
An increasing number of scientists and consumer advocates warn that current gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact and unpredictable, and that the toxic chemicals, especially Monsanto’s Roundup, sprayed on these genetically engineered seeds and plants are incredibly dangerous. In October 2013, more than 200 scientists, physicians, academics and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment GMOs issued a statement which said, “we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over.'"
It is now blatantly obvious that GMOs are nothing more than patented Pesticide Delivery Systems (PDS) designed to increase sales of poisonous agrochemicals such as Roundup, glufosinate, Bt, 2,4 D and neonicotinoids. To claim that GMOs are perfectly safe is equivalent to saying that pesticides, herbicides and fungicides—systemically laced at ever-higher levels into GMO-tainted human food and animal feed—are perfectly safe. And to make matters worse, hundreds of millions of pounds of Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, are now routinely sprayed on 160 different crops, just before harvest, including wheat, potatoes, oats, canola, flax, peas and dried beans. In other words, just about every non-organic item in your supermarket, or every item on your restaurant menu (bread, potatoes, meat, milk,) is now tainted with Roundup.
A 12-point agenda for driving GMOs off the market
The anti-GMO and organic Movement has come a long way in the past two decades. But given the dangers posed by GMOs and Roundup, it’s time to move aggressively forward. Here are a dozen crucial steps we need to take in 2015 to drive GMOs and Roundup off the market.
1.    Stop Congress from passing the Pompeo bill (HR #4432) in 2015, which would take away states rights to pass mandatory GMO food labeling bills, and make it legal for unscrupulous food and beverage companies to continue mislabeling  GMO-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural.”
2.    Stop Congress from “fast-tracking” and passing secretly negotiated “Free Trade” agreements (the TPP-Trans-Pacific Partnership, and TTIP-Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) that would weaken consumer and states rights to label and safety test GMO and factory-farmed foods.
3.    Pass more state laws requiring mandatory labels on GMOs.
4.    Pass more bans on GMOs, neonicotinoids and pesticides at the township, city, and county levels.
5.    Support Vermont, Maui (Hawaii), Jackson and Josephine counties (Oregon) in their federal and state legal battles to uphold their laws requiring labels and/or bans on GMOs.
6.    Educate the public on the dangers and cruelty of GMO-fed, factory-farmed meat, dairy and egg products, and organize a “Great Boycott” of all factory-farmed foods.
7.    Support mandatory state legislation to label dairy products and chain restaurant food coming from factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations).
8.    Pressure retail natural food stores and coops to follow the lead of Whole Foods Market and the Natural Grocer to label and/or ban all GMO-derived foods, including meat and animal products and deli foods, from their stores.
9.    Pressure restaurants to follow the lead of organic/grass fed restaurants and ban, or at least label, all GMO ingredients.
10.    Support consumer efforts to test for Roundup/glyphosate contamination in drinking water, human urine, breast milk, and in non-GMO food products such as wheat, potatoes, oats, peas, lentils and dry beans that are currently sprayed with Roundup before harvest.
11.    Educate the public on the positive health, environmental, ethical and climate-friendly (greenhouse gas sequestering) attributes of organic, grass-fed, and pasture-raised food and farming.
12.    Boycott the “Traitor Brand” products of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the Snack Food Association.
 
Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica

Thursday, January 22, 2015

New Study: Monsanto’s Herbicide Chemical Damages DNA (re-post from PatriotRising)

New Study: Monsanto’s Herbicide Chemical Damages DNA

Posted January 21, 2015 11:23 am by
Did Monsanto Know All Along?
DNA

A new peer-reviewed scientific study has found that soybean workers exposed to glyphosate suffer from DNA damage and elevated cell death. Adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) are the components of nucleic acid that make up DNA, and biotech is making these important parts of our biology a mash-up that no sane person would ever want to experience.

Soybean workers in Brazil exposed to fungicides herbicides and insecticides (the main three chemical classifications used extensively by the biotech farming model) experienced an elevated level of cellular apoptosis, as well as remarkable DNA damage according to the Elsevier published, Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis.
The research concentrated on Glyphosate and 2,4-D, two chemicals that practically cover all of the US farming landscape. Glyphosate alone is used doubly as often as it was five years ago, with more than 185 million pounds of glyphosate-based and Round Up ready chemicals sprayed on our crops annually. Most GM crops were made, in fact, to withstand Round Up chemicals specifically. (Interestingly, the USDA won’t even test for glyphosate regularly because it’s ‘too expensive.’)

The herbicide 2,4-D has been used even longer than glyphosate – since the 1940s in fact – so there is no telling just how saturated our soil, and water is with this particular chemical. (Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam war contained 2,4-D.)

Danieli Benedetti and others found that the widespread cultivation of GM soybeans in the State of Rio Grande do Sul (RS, Brazil), especially in the city of Espumoso is particularly toxic to farm workers there.

They find:

“. . .the comet assay in peripheral leukocytes and the buccal micronucleus (MN) cytome assay (BMCyt) in exfoliated buccal cells were used to assess the effects of exposures to pesticides in soybean farm workers from Espumoso.A total of 127 individuals, 81 exposed and 46 non-exposed controls, were evaluated. Comet assay and BMCyt (micronuclei and nuclear buds) data revealed DNA damage in soybean workers.

Cell death was also observed (condensed chromatin, karyorhectic, and karyolitic cells). Inhibition of non-specific choline esterase (BchE) was not observed in the workers. The trace element contents of buccal samples were analyzed by Particle-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE). Higher concentrations of Mg, Al, Si, P, S, and Cl were observed in cells from workers. No associations with use of personal protective equipment, gender, or mode of application of pesticides were observed.


Our findings indicate the advisability of monitoring genetic toxicity in soybean farm workers exposed to pesticides.”
It isn’t just farm workers that need to be concerned, though. Research in the German journal Ithaca stumbled upon significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers. Many of the participants in this study showed glyphosate levels in their blood and urine that were up to 20 times the allowable levels in drinking water.

Other Studies Agree – Pesticide Chemicals Damage DNA

Multiple studies prior to the Brazilian research just conducted have shown cytotoxic and DNA-damaging effects of glyphosate exposure. In one study, Koller and his colleagues found that:

“. . . lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation. Since we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.”
As Natural Society previously reported, another study found that it only takes 57 parts per million for Round Up to completely destroy human kidney cells. We kind of need our kidneys. Agricultural levels of glyphosate are often more than 200 times this level.

You have to assume Monsanto knew that its RoundUp chemicals would damage DNA. After all, they’ve hidden toxicity results before, saying that they were a ‘commercial secret.’

Approximately 92% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO, which means they are grown with Round Up or glyphosate-containing chemicals, and the Koller study found that even smaller concentrations (.02%) of Monsanto’s best seller sprayed on our crops causes DNA damage.

That means you can dilute Round Up more than 98% and it will still damage your cells.

In what country is a company allowed to knowingly, purposefully, scientifically kill human DNA (and thus humans) and not be charged with murder, treason, or at the bare minimum the withholding of information? Oh, that’s right – America.

Sure, biotech companies will tell you that DNA gets damaged all the time – from UV rays, oxidation, medical X-rays, even environmental toxins which biotech doesn’t create, but hen they systemically market a product(s) that kills your cells – shouldn’t they be stopped?

Damaged DNA leads to cancer, faster aging, neurological disease and the break down of our organs. There are hundreds of pathological conditions which are caused by damaged DNA, not that we can’t take proactive steps to heal our DNA, but agencies which allow these products to stay on the market are an abomination.

Even 9th graders understand the importance of DNA, and while the human genome project that sequenced more than 100,00 genes stilldidn’t explain the whole picture of our genetic make-up, DNA is an essential part of it, and shouldn’t be damaged. You can revisit the basics of DNA, here.

This article originally appeared at Natural Society.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Derrick Hamilton - Another Casualty of the Broken Justice System (Updated)

Derrick Hamilton - Another Casualty of the Broken Justice System         
We've another one, dear readers. Can you guarantee your freedom, if you're convicted of a crime when you're in ANOTHER STATE, with dozens of witnesses who can attest to your presence at that time?
Read about Derrick Hamilton, and understand that a miscarriage of justice can happen to YOU. Let's put an end to this.
JUSTICE DENIED: THE MAGAZINE FOR THE WRONGLY CONVICTED
PAGE 10 ISSUE 41 - SUMMER 2008
On the morning of January 4, 1991, 15-year-old Tasheen Douglas was walking in Brooklyn, New York on his way to school when a red car pulled up alongside him. Inside the car were three acquaintances, Amir “YaYa” Johnson, Willie “Money-Will” Dawson and a guy he knew as Dequan. They told Douglas they were headed to see Nathaniel Cash to settle a dispute between Johnson and Cash. Hoping to mediate between Johnson and Cash, Douglas jumped in the car and rode to Cash’s apartment.
Upon arriving, Dawson called Cash to come downstairs to talk. When the conversation between Johnson and Cash in the building’s vestibule got heated, Cash smacked Johnson in the face and told him to leave. Johnson responded by pulling out a pistol and shooting Cash several times. Wounded, but still on his feet, Cash fled but was shot in the back by Dawson as he ran down the steps in front of the building. Cash then fell down and died.
Douglas, Johnson and Dequan left in the car they arrived in, while Dawson stayed behind. 911 called at 11:01 a.m. At 11:01 a.m. a female caller to 911 reported that a male had been shot at 215 Monroe Street, and three male blacks were fleeing in a red Pontiac Grand Am southbound on Nostrand Avenue. The police arrived at 11:04 a.m. and saw a hysterical woman standing over Cash’s body. When questioned by homicide Detective Delouisa, the woman told him her name was Karen Smith and she had spent the previous night with Cash. She also told him that at 10:25 a.m. she went to the corner store, and upon returning about 11 a.m. she discovered Cash dead outside the building. Smith told Delouisa that she “did not witness the shooting.” Delouisa made notes of his interview with Smith on two pages of his memo book.
After the police arrived Dawson came out of his hiding place and began telling onlookers that Derrick “Bush” Hamilton shot Cash. Dawson also spoke with Delouisa at the crime scene and identified himself as a friend of Cash. When Cash’s two sisters arrived, Dawson told them that Smith was involved in their brother’s murder. A brawl erupted between Smith and Cash’s sisters. Police separated the women, and since Smith was being accused of involvement in the murder she was transported to the 79th police precinct to be interrogated.
Smith’s precinct statement
When Delouisa questioned Smith at the precinct, she told him that Hamilton shot Cash, which is what Dawson was spreading around at the crime scene. Although Smith’s identification of Hamilton was contrary to her crime scene declaration to Delouisa that she “did not witness the shooting,” Hamilton became the prime suspect based on Smith’s claim. Smith also revealed that her name was Jewel Smith, not Karen Smith. She gave a false name at the crime scene because she was on probation and didn’t want trouble for herself.
No investigation of Smith’s two statements
The police detectives did not investigate Smith’s crime scene declaration that she was not present during Cash’s shooting. Nor was Smith questioned regarding her two inconsistent and incompatible statements on the day of the murder. The prosecutor subsequently relied on Smith’s identification of Hamilton to obtain his grand jury indictment.
On March 21, 1991, a joint task force from the New Haven Police Department and the NY Police Department converged on the beauty salon that Hamilton co-owned in New Haven, Connecticut. Hamilton was arrested and later transported to New York for trial.
Smith’s second recantation
Four days after Hamilton’s arrest, Smith went to the office in New York of Hamilton’s attorney George Sheinberg. She admitted to Sheinberg that she did not see Hamilton shoot Cash. However, she did not mention that she gave a crime scene statement
under the name of Karen Smith.
The trial
The prosecution’s case against Hamilton amounted to the evidence of one person: Smith. There was no other evidence even placing Hamilton at the crime scene. Smith did not want to testify during Hamilton’s July 1992 trial, but Judge Edward M. Rappaport directed Smith to “cooperate fully” with the prosecutor or risk being jailed. Faced with the judge’s order and possible perjury charges if she changed her grand jury testimony, Smith fabricated a story. She told the jury that Hamilton alone fired a gun at Cash.
Detective Delouisa reportedly retired prior to Hamilton’s trial and he wasn’t subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify. During jury selection, the memo book notes of Delouisa’s crime scene interview of Karen Smith were provided by the prosecutor to Sheinberg. But Sheinberg didn’t know who Karen Smith was. Prior to starting his cross-examination of Jewel Smith, Sheinberg “asked the Assistant District Attorney Anne Gutmann if Jewel
Smith was Karen Smith, and she said no.” Since Sheinberg didn’t know that Karen and Jewel Smith were the same person, he didn’t cross-examine her about the discrepancy between her crime scene statement and her statement hours later at the police station in which she identified Hamilton as the shooter.
After Smith testified, Sheinberg “asked Gutmann if she knew who Karen Smith was; she said she had no idea or she didn’t know.”
(Quotes are from Sheinberg’s direct testimony: People v. Hamilton, No 142/91, Kings County Supreme Court, Post-conviction hearing, October 19, 1992.)
The prosecution’s ballistics expert was Thomas Natale, a technician with the Ballistics Section of the NYPD. On direct examination he testified:
Q. (By A.D.A. Gutmann) Based upon
your examination of 1 through 15 and
People’s 7 and People’s 8, did you come
to a conclusion?
A. Yes, ma’am. … Two separate firearms
fired the discharged shells. …
The Court: Let me ask you a question,
Detective Natale, as an expert, are you
saying based upon what you told us so
far, that two separate guns were used in
this, based upon the forensic evidence?
The Witness: That’s correct, your Honor.
After several more pages of testimony in
which Natale explained the process of microscopic
examination of bullet fragments,
the judge asked him:
The Court: Based upon all of this, your
conclusion is that two different guns
were used?
The Witness: That is correct. (Derrick
Hamilton v. State, Trial transcript, 324-
325, 327-328)
Natale’s testimony was in direct conflict with Smith’s testimony that she saw Cash shot by one person.
Sheinberg filed a Notice of Alibi Defense prior to Hamilton’s trial that listed Alphonso Dixon, Kim Freeman and James Hamilton
as witnesses, but they didn’t testify.
Alibi evidence not revealed to jury
On the evening of January 3, 1991, Hamilton and his companion Kim Freeman attended a going away party for a friend at the Quality Inn Hotel in New Haven, Connecticut. The event was hosted by Alphonso Dixon, Hamilton’s friend and his partner in
the beauty salon where Hamilton was arrested eleven weeks later in March.

The next morning (January 4) at approximately 11 a.m., Hamilton and Kelly Turner drove in her car from the Quality Inn Hotel to her talent booking business in New Haven. Turner and Hamilton had met at the party the night before, and learned that they had mutual business interests. At Turner’s office they discussed the music business and exchanged networking contacts. During their meeting one thing they discussed was Hamilton’s contacts might be able to help Turner book
talent at the Apollo Theater in Harlem.
Later that day (the 4th) Hamilton and Freeman were informed of Cash’s murder in Brooklyn. Freeman is the mother of a daughter fathered by Cash. Although distraught that her child’s father had been tragically killed, she was angry when told that people in Brooklyn were accusing Hamilton of shooting Cash. Dixon, who organized the party on the evening of January 3 that ended the next morning around 2 am, wanted to testify as a
defense witness. However he was unable to travel from New Haven to the trial because of his poor health. Dixon wrote in an affidavit submitted to the judge a week before Hamilton’s trial began in July 1992:
I, Alphonso Dixon, being duly sworn
deposes and says; that in January 1991,
Me, Derrick Hamilton, and a few other
relatives and friends gave a party at the
Quality Inn Hotel … in the town of New
Haven, CT … On January 3, 1991 which
was the night of the party. Derrick and I
stayed at the party, until approximately
2 or 3:00 a.m., which is when Derrick
accompanied by a female (whom I know
to be Kim) went to his room. … Derrick
and [his brother] James stayed with me
from January 3, 1991 until January 5,
1991. … He used the money his deceased
father left to him and invested it
in a Beauty Salon in New Haven, CT. …
On approximately March 21, 1991, Derrick
was arrested in the Salon …
Along with this affidavit is a letter from
my Doctor, who advised me not to travel
to New York to testify, due to my
medical problems …
(Affidavit of Alphonso Dixon, June 24,
1992.)
Dixon’s doctor wrote a letter explaining Dixon’s health condition:
Mr. Alphonso Dixon is followed at the
Cardiology Clinic and is suffering from
a severe dilated cardiomyopathy with
congestive heart failure.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marc Moreau, M.D.
June 25, 1992
During Hamilton’s trial their was no testimony
regarding Dixon’s affidavit or the doctor’s letter.
Kim Freeman executed an affidavit several days prior to Hamilton’s trial in which she stated in part:
[O]n Friday January 4, 1991, I was in
New Haven, Connecticut with Derrick
Hamilton. We went there on Thursday,
January the 3rd … to attend a party. I
stayed there with Derrick for the weekend,
and found out from Derrick that my
child’s father had been murdered and
people were saying that Derrick committed
the murder. If Nathaniel [Cash] was
killed on January 4th, I know it was impossible
for Derrick to do this because I
was with him … I will not testify in a
court of law because I have been threatened
by Nate’s friends, that if I come to
court I will be murdered like Money-Will
(Willie Dawson) was killed. … I trust this
document will shed light on a matter I
know is true. … Please let this be enough
to satisfy the court and Derrick's attorney,
because I would flee if I thought I would
be called and had to testify publicity to
these events. My life means more to me
and my child, than helping Derrick or
anyone else. Thank you for listening.
(Affidavit of Kim Freeman, June 29, 1992.)
Kim Freeman didn’t testify and their was no testimony regarding her affidavit. So the jury convicted Hamilton without knowing there were credible witnesses who could establish an alibi defense for his presence in New Haven on the day of Cash’s murder 82 miles away in Brooklyn.* Hamilton’s attorney didn’t present any witnesses, instead he relied on the strategy of trying to poke holes in the prosecution’s case to demonstrate there was reasonable doubt of Hamilton’s guilt.
The verdict
The jury advised the judge on July 17, 1992 that they were deadlock and could not reach a verdict. The jury’s note read: “Your Honor, after serious deliberation of the evidence presented, we are unable to reach a unanimous decision. The weight and burden of our deliberations are at the point of causing severe mental and emotional anguish. We feel that we have conscientiously attempted to attain a unanimous decision.” The judge ordered the jury to continue deliberating. Later that day they convicted Hamilton of second-degree murder. Hamilton was later sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
Post-verdict and post-conviction testimony, affidavits and evidence
After Hamilton’s conviction he began to obtain affidavits from people who either had knowledge he did not shoot Cash or that he was in New Haven at the time of the crime. He obtained an affidavit from Turner, who he was with at the time of Cash’s
murder, in which she states:
1. … I am presently a police officer with
the New Haven, Connecticut Police Department.
2. I have been a member of said police
department since November 22, 1991.

6. I first met Derrick Hamilton (Hamilton)
on the evening of January 3, 1991 when I
was introduced to him at a party I attended
in the Banquet Room at the Quality Inn
located at Exit 59 of the Wilbur Cross
Parkway in New Haven, Connecticut.

10. At the time, I ran a talent agency
located at 1440 Whaley Avenue, New
Haven, Connecticut.
11. It was my job to acquire jobs and
book groups for shows, clubs, parties, etc.
12. I recall that I spoke for some time
with Hamilton concerning my business,
and Hamilton seemed to think he could
help me with bookings in New York City
where he said he had several contacts.
13. I made an appointment that evening
with Hamilton to meet him at the Quality
Inn the following morning between 11:00
a.m. and 11:15 a.m. in order to show him
my office and further discuss business.
14. The party at the Quality Inn ended at
approximately 1 or 2 a.m.
15. The following morning, January 4,
1991 I drove to the above Quality Inn
and picked up Hamilton between 11 and
11:15 am.
16. Thereafter, we drove to my office at
1440 Whaley Avenue in New Haven,
arriving there at approximately 11:20 am.
17. The meeting with Hamilton concluded
at about 12 noon.

20. I recall the dates very clearly because,
among other things, I clearly recall
that the above going-away party
was three days after New Year’s Eve.
(Affidavit of Kelly Turner, May 1995.)

Davette Mahan, who worked with Turner at the talent agency, also executed an affidavit confirming from her personal knowledge that Turner met with Hamilton on the late morning of January 4. The Quality Inn’s billing records show that Dixon was charged $803.60 for a sixty to one hundred person party in the Washington South conference room on the evening of January 3. Their records also show payments for hotel rooms at the Quality Inn.
Several of the affidavits Hamilton obtained were by people who claimed to have given statements to the police or the prosecutor. However, those statements were not disclosed to Hamilton’s attorney even though they were exculpatory. Darren Breeden provided an affidavit that states in part:
I recall speaking to A.D.A. Anne Gutmann
about Derrick Hamilton [“Bush”]
and the accusations of murder made
against him by Jewel Smith.
I told A.D.A. Gutmann, Mr. Hamilton did
not shoot Cash. I was on Nostrand and
Gates the same day of the shooting speaking
to a person named Money Will who
told me that himself (Money Will) and a
person named Yaya shot Nate after Nate
slapped Yaya. They spread the word
around saying Bush did it because they
didn’t want to get arrested for the crime.
I also spoke to Jewel Smith, around March
of 1991 … Jewel told me that she never
witnessed the crime, but had been forced
to say Bush did it because the police had
threatened to lock her up until she testified
to having seen Bush shoot Nathaniel …
I told Ms. Gutmann, about my conversation
with Money Will and Jewel, yet she
insisted if I wanted a deal with their office
on my pending cases, I would have to
testify on Derrick Hamilton [“Bush”] implicating
him in Nathaniel Cash’s murder.
I thought about it for a while, then declined
the offer … I couldn’t see myself lying on
Derrick Hamilton, and [him] getting 20
years to life for my part in the subterfuge.
(Affidavit of Darren Breeden, August
10, 1996.)
Tasheen Douglas was with Johnson (“YaYa”) and Dawson (“Will”), and he saw them shoot Cash. Douglas’ police statement wasn’t provided to Hamilton’s attorney. Douglas stated in an affidavit after Hamilton’s trial:
1. That the affidavit I’m making is true
and based on my recollection as to the
best of my knowledge of an interview
with law enforcement agencies of Kings
County in the months of June or July
1992 or soon before said months.
2. That I was interviewed and stated in
full what knowledge I had concerning
the shooting death of Nathaniel. Cash on
January 4, 1991. I told the people who
questioned me that my friends YaYa
and Will killed Nate.
3. The reason Nate died was because he
slapped YaYa after they had an argument.
On the day of the shooting nobody
was conscious that Nate was
gonna get shot or killed, it happened
spontaneously. Nate slapped YaYa and
the next thing I knew both Will and
YaYa started shooting him (Nate).
4. Present on the scene of the crime was
myself, Money Will (Will), YaYa and
Daquan. Our purpose being there was to
talk to Nate about threats he made
against YaYa. …
5. Once Nate slapped YaYa things got
out of hand. We all left after the shooting
except Will who stayed. YaYa had a
red car which I believe was a Trans Am
or something. Will later told me and
YaYa that he made it look like “Bush”
Derrick Hamilton, killed Nate, because
everyone in the neighborhood knew that
they had a dispute recently …
7. I told the law enforcement agents
what I knew when they came to see me.
Which was that Derrick Hamilton was
innocent and that YaYa and Will was
guilty of the murder of Nate.
8. At the time of the shooting no one
was present except Me, Will, YaYa and
Daquan. Nobody else witnessed the
shooting. …
(Affidavit of Tasheen Douglas, September
10, 1993.)

Felicia Schuler was another person who provided an affidavit. She swore that Smith and her were at the grocery store at the time Cash was murdered. Felicia Schuler’s affidavit was executed on December 8, 1992. The most important affidavit was by the prosecution’s key witness – Jewel Smith.
Hamilton discovered after his conviction that Karen Smith who gave the crime scene statement and Jewel Smith who testified at his trial, are the same woman. A private investigator hired by Hamilton learned she was living in North Carolina and traveled there in April 1993 to interview her. Smith executed an affidavit in which she stated in part:
Q. Mrs. Smith did you testify … against
Derrick Hamilton?
A. Yes
Q. Was your testimony true?
A. No

Q. On January 4, 1991, did you in fact ever
see Derrick Hamilton at anytime that day?
A. No
Q. Did you ever see Derrick Hamilton
fire a gun which killed Nathaniel Cash
in your presence?
A. No
Q. Did you testify truthfully when you
stated that you saw Derrick Hamilton
shoot Nathaniel Cash numerous times?
A. No
Q. Did you ever tell the police or the
District Attorneys Office that what you
were to testify to was untruthful?
A. Yes, several times

Q. When you made these revelations to
these officials that the testimony you were
going to give was false what did they do
to make you falsely testify in this case?
A. They threaten me; gave me ultimatum,
they would put me in jail for the
murder until I was ready to testify, take
my kids from me and I would never see
them again and get me violated for being
with a known felon.

Q. Has anyone made any threats or
promise to you to conduct this interview
and recant upon prior testimony?
A. No
(Jewel Smith Affidavit of April 21, 1993.)

At least 13 people have provided an affidavit or testified during post-conviction proceedings either that Hamilton wasn’t at the crime scene, that individuals other than Hamilton are responsible for Cash’s murder, or that Smith wasn’t present at the time of the shooting.
Appeals denied
After Hamilton was found guilty in July 1992, he filed a pro se motion to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence of his innocence. The key evidence was Smith’s sworn recantation. Several evidentiary hearings were held regarding that motion. Smith testified that she did not see Hamilton shoot Cash, and Det. Delouisa testified that Smith was the woman who gave him the spontaneous crime scene statement that she “did not witness the shooting.” On July 8, 1993 the judge denied the motion. ruling that Smith’s
recantation of her trial testimony wasn’t credible. Four days later Hamilton was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Hamilton filed a pro se motion on January 5, 1994 to vacate his judgment of conviction. He claimed prosecution Brady and
Rosario violations, and that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate witnesses or subpoena witnesses who could have established an alibi defense that Hamilton was in New Haven at the time of the crime. Judge Rappaport denied most of Hamilton’s claims. Among his rulings were that neither the inability of Dixon to testify because of ill health, nor the failure of Freeman to testify because of fears for the safety of her and her child, had anything to do with the competence of Hamilton’s attorney. The judge also denied Hamilton’s Brady and Rosario’s claims, ruling there was “insufficient proof the prosecution was in
possession of this exculpatory evidence.”
However, Judge Rappaport did grant Hamilton an evidentiary hearing regarding Tasheen Douglas’ affidavit of September 1993. Douglas subsequently testified in detail about the events described in his affidavit. On April 2, 1996 Judge Edward M. Rappaport judge ruled there was no Brady violation regarding the four statements that Douglas claimed to have made to NYPD detectives, because of insufficient evidence that the prosecution was in possession of Douglas’ exculpatory statements.
Even though Hamilton’s conviction was based solely on the trial testimony of Smith that she recanted, the judge also ruled that Douglas’ affidavit wasn’t “new evidence” warranting a new trial, because it wasn’t sufficient by itself to have altered the jury’s verdict. In addition, the judge refused to consider
the exculpatory alibi affidavits of Turner and Mahan, who were not listed as witnesses on Hamilton’s Notice of Alibi Defense. The New York Appellate Division granted Hamilton leave to appeal the motion’s denial, and consolidated his direct appeal into that appeal. In 2000 the appeals court denied Hamilton’s direct appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the motion to vacate his conviction he filed in 1994. (See, People v. Hamilton,
272 A.D.2d 553 (2000).) In its ruling the court determined that Hamilton’s attorney wasn’t ineffective for failing to investigate or subpoena alibi or exculpatory witnesses.
Federal habeas corpus petition
Having exhausted his state remedies, Hamilton filed a pro-se federal habeas corpus petition on March 16, 2001. U.S District Court Judge Gleeson denied the petition on January 16, 2004. However, Gleeson did acknowledge that if Hamilton’s attorney had known that Jewel Smith made crime scene declaration that she did not witness the shooting, it could have been used to undermine her trial testimony.
Coram nobis writ denied
Hamilton filed a pro se writ of error coram nobis in state court to vacate the appeals court’s 2000 decision denying his direct appeal. Hamilton claimed ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. On September 9, 2008 the New York Appellate Division denied Hamilton’s writ in a one-line ruling:
“The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel.” People v. Hamilton, 2008 NY Slip Op 06851 (N.Y. App. Div. 9/9/2008).
Smith supports Hamilton’s release
In addition to Smith’s admission during Hamilton’s post-conviction hearing that she perjured herself during her grand jury and trial testimony, and her affidavit admitting her perjury, she wrote letters to the appellate judges prior to their denial of Hamilton’s direct appeal in 2000, and she wrote letters on his behalf to NY Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in 2007 and to the New York State Board of Parole.
Current status
Hamilton is gathering affidavits and letters to include with a pardon application. Hamilton’s court appointed attorney in 1992 and 1993 during his post-trial challenge to his conviction was New York attorney Howard Weiswasser. Fifteen years later
Weiswasser executed an Affirmation on April 25, 2008 that was based on his extensive knowledge of Hamilton’s case. Weiswasser swore: “Based upon all I know about this matter it is my opinion that DERRICK HAMILTON is an innocent man with an unjust conviction.”
Derrick Hamilton can be written at:
Derrick Hamilton 93-A-5631
Shawangunk CF
P.O. Box 700
Wallkill, NY 12589
Nicole Hamilton is Derrick Hamilton’s wife
and she is his outside contact. Email her at,
Nickmickron@yahoo.com
* It is 82 miles from the Quality Inn in New Haven, CT
to the location of Cash’s murder in Brooklyn, according
to Mapquest.com, and the travel time is 1 hr. 53 minutes.
Original URL: http://freederrick.com/index.html
Read the article as it appeared at this link - http://freederrick.com/pdf/derricksstory.pdf


Update (1/13/2015): Kings County D.A. Ken Thompson has vacated the sentence against Derrick Hamilton!


I am still in awe of the fact that someone could be found guilty of a crime committed when one was in a different state!


Crazy.


I want to mention that organic and conventional seed banks are being put under undue pressure, while GMO seed banks are not. We need to contact our representatives and call off these dogs, and point them where they should be focusing their attentions; namely, upon Monsanto, BASF, Sygenta, DuPont and the rest of the GMO purveyors.


Here's a list of seed banks I've located.

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Power Of The People!

Happy Friday, dear readers!




I posted yesterday on the absolutely awesome efforts by the SHAKA Movement in successfully appealing the ruling by the obviously compromised U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren.




Just to be fair, here's a news item presenting Monsanto's views on the matter: http://www.kitv.com/news/head-of-monsanto-talks-about-battle-over-gmos/29974528




If you've never heard of the term "weasel wording", take heed of the preceding news item - this is Weasel Words 101. Print yourself a certificate in this course after you've read the piece - I'll sign it, if we ever cross paths.




I was reading Jon Rappoport's latest piece regarding GMOs and the FDA - it's stunning and to the point: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/monsanto-science-and-fraud-are-the-same-thing/




He's spot on that our "watchdog" media has not only turned a blind eye to the dangers of GMOs; they've actively colluded with the biotech cheerleaders and the lapdog FDA in allowing what could be the vanguard of an extinction-level threat upon our world.


At this point, "labeling" foods as GMOs is an utter waste of effort - that should have been the practice back in the 1990s when genetically-modified organisms were first offered to us as an "addition" to our available foodstuffs. As you have seen, the powers-that-be do NOT want us to know anything in regards to what were ingesting. If this isn't true, please explain the tens (possibly hundreds) of MILLIONS of dollars in thwarting efforts to enlighten We The People as to what we're feeding our families and friends every day.


Hawaii is a special case - the climate allows for crops to be planted year-round. The biotech companies are pouring their herbicides onto the crops and into the soil all year, as well.


They are making money coming and going - first with their FrankenCrops, and again with their "herbicides". It's a huge scam, and we are all the poorer for it. We don't get crops that are nutritious; by the nature of GMOs, the crops lack the level of nutrients available in conventional and/or organic crops (chelation), and the soil is made less able to grow new crops by the inundation of the poison being passed off as "herbicides".


I don't understand - there's nothing wrong with a little bit of hard work. When I was away, I couldn't find work in my field - I had to be on my feet for nearly seven and a half hours a day. At first, I didn't enjoy doing it, but I got used to it, and the camaraderie and learning the ropes took away from the sheer drudgery (and I also got more comfortable shoes!) - it was all working out well, until the "incident" occurred, and I was unable to work at that point. I am still recovering, but I am working back in my field, and luckily for me, Microsoft's Windows 8 offering was so utterly unappealing to users that I didn't have to learn using it when I went back to my chosen profession.


Again, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the in-your-face conflict of interest in regards to Judge Kurren was made plain and appropriate steps were taken to fight against the kangaroo ruling.


I will be keeping watch of this - stay tuned, and have a wonderful holiday season, everyone!


The best to my family, my loved ones and my friends.


These are some of the ingredients to watch out for on food labels: Sugar, Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Soybean Oil, Mono & Diglycerides, Soy Lecithin, Citric Acid, Cornstarch, Canola Oil, Fructose, Xanthan Gum, Cottonseed Oil, Glycerin, Food Starch (thanks to the Food Babe for this and other info!)







Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Why Are The GMO Purveyors Poisoning Our Earth?

I recently came across an article in The Atlantic regarding an Amish farmer who, instead of introducing pesticides to his produce, endeavored to strengthen the immune systems of the produce, found that the plants themselves would then develop their own defenses, eliminating the need for pesticides which end up being less useful while still presenting a danger to you and I.




Here's an excerpt of the dialogue between the interviewer and the farmer:



Roc Morin: Can you describe the differences between how you used to farm and how you farm now?
Samuel Zook: The inputs changed drastically. Instead of trying to grow crops that are healthy with fungicides and pesticides, I started to grow crops that are healthy with nutrition.
Morin: What was the hardest part about making the change?
Zook: Well, there was a big psychological block that I had to get through. I’d see a couple bugs out there and feel like I immediately had to do something about it. But, I learned that if I sit back, things will often take care of themselves. That first summer for instance, we saw a lot of horn worms. Before that, I would have sprayed them right away, but this time I waited and a bunch of wasps came along and killed them. Once I saw that, I started getting really excited.
Morin: So, when you use a pesticide you’re killing the predators too, right?
Zook: Right. You’re killing the entire ecosystem.
Morin: Have all of your problems disappeared?
Zook: I wish I could say that, but not entirely. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden yet. The issues I had before have disappeared, but we still have some other issues that we’re working on. One of the main things that has improved is how it feels to farm. Before, if I applied fungicide on my tomatoes, I had to wait three to seven days before I could reenter the area. Now, it’s so nice to just walk in my field any day of the week and not worry a bit. That in itself is huge. The other thing is, when I used to mix these skull-and-cross-bones chemicals to put in my sprayer, I’d have to be suited up. The children would be around and I’d say, “Now, get in the house. It’s not safe.” Now though, if the children want to help, it’s fine. If I want to mix the solutions better, I’ll just put my hand in a stir it around.
Morin: What are some of the problems that you’re dealing with now?
Zook: One of my major issues in the greenhouse is spider mites—little insects that just love a warm, dry environment. It’s very hard to control them, even conventionally. We usually get them under control, but we often lose some yield.
Morin: How do you get them under control?
Zook: Mainly through applying specific trace minerals like iodine and a whole line of ultra-micronutrients. We analyzed the sap of the plants with the help of a lab and I think we’ve narrowed the problem down to excessive ammonium nitrates. If ammonia builds up in the plants, it’s bug food, so we need to figure out a way to convert ammonia fast. I just spent two days with John [Kempf], and he came up with an enzyme cofactor which we’ll use to stimulate that ammonia conversion. We figure things out ourselves now rather than call up the chemical rep.
Morin: What did your chemical rep say when you told him that you didn’t need his services anymore?
Zook: Well, that was an interesting summer. He used to come here every week telling me horror stories about all the diseases in the neighborhood. But, I had made up my made up my mind, “No mas.” He came back every week for eight weeks telling me what I needed to spray. I said, “I’m fine, thanks.” The last time he was here, we were out picking tomatoes and he walked over. He was looking around and talking about this and that, and he didn’t even mention pesticides. “Well,” he said, “your tomatoes look pretty good.” I thought, “Yes!”
Morin: One thing that I immediately noticed is how great everything smells here. Do you still smell it, or are you accustomed to it?
Zook: Oh, I smell it every time I come here. It’s exciting. Those aromas are actually compounds the plants produce to defend themselves from insects and disease attacks. A lot of people don’t realize that plants have immune systems.
Morin: So, you can smell health—can you can smell problems too?
Zook: Yes. There’s a real science to walking through a field and pausing to feel what the plants are feeling. There’s a huge difference between walking in this field and walking in one that has had six fungicide applications. The plants just don’t radiate that same vitality. Another thing I learned is that every time you spray with a fungicide or something, it’s actually suppressing the plant as well as the fungi.
Morin: The same way that antibiotics can weaken a person’s immune system?
Zook: Yes. It might kill the disease, but then because it has weakened the plant, a week later the plant is much more susceptible to that same disease again. That’s the way it is with miticide. If I come in here and spray the mites with it, it would kill some of them, but it kills by messing with their hormones, so the ones that do survive will then mature 50 percent faster. So, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’d have a huge mite outbreak 10 years later. Instead of doing that, let’s figure out what this plant wants and provide it. They really do respond.
Morin: What else can you tell by looking at your plants?
Zook: Well, one thing we learn is to read the leaves. This asymmetry here indicates zinc deficiency. The spots over here indicate a phosphorus deficiency. And, this here rippling of the leaf usually indicates excess nitrogen.
Morin: Before you started with this method were you able to read the leaves?
Zook: You know, I barely noticed them at all. I just planted and sprayed. Now, it’s much more fun.

I find it hard to believe that none of these so-called "scientists" had thought of this before.


That leads me to my big question, one that kept me up for most of last night: if all that's needed is to promote self-defense in our produce, then why the hell are we allowing tons of POISON to be sprayed upon our produce and into our soil?


We've all heard of this purported "gluten intolerance". Is the truth really that we are being poisoned by pesticide residue that doesn't wash off and maintains itself until it reaches our gut and continues to disrupt bodily functions and cause imbalances?




Glyphosate, one of the many compounds used as a "pesticide", works by chelating minerals essential to growth and absorption.




That affects the viability of the plant, as well.




Research has proven beyond doubt that GMO varieties of produce lack the levels of nutrients that organic and conventional produce contains.




For all intents and purposes, you may as well be eating plastic versions of produce when you choose GMOs. Here is a repost of my observations after watching Genetic Roulette by Jeffery Smith:




  • The human body does not see GMOs as foodstuffs; instead, the "organisms" promote inflammation, disease, etc.
  • Crossing zones can create mutations in DNA
  • GMO "science" is equivalent to an episode of Gunsmoke (check out the method by which genes are "fired" into other organisms)
  • Pesticide-producing crops destroy the stomachs of insects - why do we believe that the stomachs of other organisms are immune to this?
  • "Scientific consensus" is equivalent to quackery
  • Long-term studies to gauge effects of GMOs on organisms were never performed
  • The FDA actually doesn't approve any GMO crops, and biotech firms are free to market their FrankenFoods as viable alternatives to naturally grown/organic crops
  • The biotech firms have "bad science" down to a science
  • The main ingredient in Monsanto's BT crops, Bacillus Thurgeniensis, breaks open stomach tissue - that is its primary function...so why would this affect only insects?
  • The bacteria (BT) in Roundup soybeans persisted in the human gut - this would seem to account for the increase in gastro-intestinal ailments in the last few decades
  • Food allergies/intolerances are caused by intestinal function disruption
  • 35 years ago, there was no such thing as a "food allergy"
  • There is a relationship between GMOs and autism, though the firm link has not been established
  • Roundup functions as a deprivation agent (glyphosate is a chelator - it makes nutrients unavailable to the organism) - by definition, Roundup-ready crops have less nutritional value than conventional crops; Roundup can also affect the human body in the same way - those missing trace minerals adversely affect immune response
  • Glysophate is genotoxic
  • Fertility clinics now abound - once, they were scarce and unnecessary
  • The mystery organism discovered by Dr. Don Huber is transferable and heat-tolerant; in examining aborted fetal tissue, it exhibited the functions of a fungus but was the size of a virus
  • A number of testimonials from pet owners and from farms report adverse effects from GMO feed/pet foods, and the positive reactions once those GMOs are removed from their diets
  • Monsanto's rBGH ingredient IGF1 is linked to breast and prostate cancer - scientists performing these experiments later refused to ingest rBGH-laced milk
  • Children's immune systems are not prepared for GMOs - their young genes are mutable
  • The WIC Program that assists low-income families with essential supplies actually promote GMO baby formulae (including Similac, Enfamil, Gerber)
  • WHY GMOs? GMOs are a PRODUCT
  • Monsanto's true mission statement should read: "To take control of the world's foodstuffs and to marry them with our chemicals"




  • I didn't copy any of that from any website - those are my own words. I took some time to update some of my points with links.




    So, once again, I ask - why are the purveyors of GMOs allowed to poison our produce and our soil with utterly unnecessary pesticides, when one could strengthen the immune systems of our produce instead, and give us all better produce with more benefits for you and I?




    I think it's time for us to make that inquiry of Monsanto, BASF, Sygenta, Dow and all of the rest, and if we don't get a satisfactory answer, we need to SHUT THEM DOWN.

    Wednesday, November 26, 2014

    Organic Consumer Update 11-24-2014 (Re-Post)


     

    TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK

    Recount Likely

    The deadline for rounding up votes for Oregon’s Measure 92 has passed. The deadline for counting all outstanding votes, and reporting them to the Oregon Secretary of State, is Monday, November 24, 5 p.m. PST.

    As of 5 p.m. Friday, November 22,  the gap between YES and NO votes had dropped, again, to a nail biting-ly close  1,076 votes. Based on reliable estimates, there are enough outstanding votes that, if they go the right way, could still push us over the top.

    Either way, unless the gab widens again, the vote is close enough to trigger an automatic recount.
    Thanks to the herculean effort by the YES on 92 campaign—and your financial support—the campaign sent out hundreds of volunteers and supporters last week. Battling snow and ice and great odds, this dedicated army did a nothing-short-of-miraculous job of contacting voters whose ballots had been disqualified, and making sure those ballots were fixed, and those votes were counted.

    Now, we wait for the final tally, which will be reported at the end of the day Monday, November 24.

    But while we wait, the YES on 92 campaign staff is still working, preparing for the probablility of a recount. The campaign will do everything in its power to make sure that the recount is conducted carefully, and fairly.

    Win or lose in Oregon, it’s clear that Monsanto and Big Food are panicked. After all, we won the state GMO labeling battle in May, when Vermont passed
    H.112. And with stores like Whole Foods Market committed to labeling all of its 40,000 plus food and deli items, food manufacturers already face the prospect of a label that says “Contains GMOs” in stores all across the country.

    Monsanto will continue to throw its weight around, by suing states that pass GMO labeling laws, and counties that pass GMO crop bans. And by buying off members of Congress to pass a law to override and preempt state GMO labeling laws.

    But they are in for a long fight. Because consumers will not rest until every GMO-contaminated food product in this country is labeled.
    Volunteer to help with the YES on 92 Recount
     
     

    MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO

    We Need Thousands of People. And You.

    The GMO labeling movement won big in Vermont this year. And we may still win in Oregon, once all the votes are in.
    But those laws will be nullified, and we will lose the right to pass any future state or federal mandatory GMO labeling laws, if Congress passes H.R. 4432, a bill to preempt mandatory GMO labeling laws.
    H.R. 4432—the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) ACT—was introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) at the bidding of Monsanto, Big Food and the Koch Brothers.
    At this very moment, Monsanto and Big Food are gunning to pass this law.
    We need to stop this attack on the constitutional right of states to pass GMO labeling laws. That’s why we’re planning a massive protest and media event in Washington D.C. Can you help organize a bus from your area?
    Here’s the scoop. Pompeo’s DARK ACT is up for a hearing on December 9 or 10 (the date hasn’t been finalized yet, but we need to start planning). OCA is working with activists in many states, including New York, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland, to bus people in to Washington on the date of the hearing.
    What will we do there? We will fill the hearing room and line the streets with consumers and citizens who will make it clear to Congress, the media and the Biotech Bullies and Junk Food Giants that we will not sit quietly by while Congress allows Monsanto to trample on our Democracy and poison our food without transparency or accountability.
    If you can fill a bus from your area, OCA will pay the transportation. We are also organizing an organic lunch with speakers and the press, following the hearing.
    The GMO labeling movement has not come this far only to allow members of Congress, who have been paid off by Monsanto, to strip us of our constitutional rights. H.R. 4432 is designed to kill the GMO labeling movement once and for all. We can’t let that happen. We need thousands of people in order to get the attention of Congress and the media. Can you be one of them?
    Sign up to organize
     
     

    ACTION ALERT

    Between the Lines

    Less than a week after the OCA and other groups petitioned McDonald’s to reject a GMO potato newly approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), ABC News, NBC News, CBS News and numerous other media outlets declared a victory for consumers based on a statement McDonald’s provided to the Idaho Statesman.
    Here’s what a McDonald’s spokesperson told the Idaho Statesman when asked if the fast-food chain would buy Simplot’s GMO potato:
    "McDonald's USA does not source GMO potatoes, nor do we have current plans to change our sourcing practices."
    A victory for consumers? Or just a victory for McDonald’s public relations team?
    As POLITICO pointed out, the McDonald’s statement may have been technically accurate. But it far from rules out the future possibility that McDonald’s will serve up frankenfries. McDonald’s does not now source GMO potatoes, because there are none yet on the market. And just because the restaurant chain claims it doesn’t have “current plans” to use the Simplot potato, doesn’t mean it can’t change its plans.
    TAKE ACTION: Ask McDonald’s CEO Donald Thompson to commit to NEVER USE Simplot’s “Innately Wrong” GMO potato!
    Read OCA’s Open Letter to McDonald’s CEO Donald Thompson

    Photo Credit: phil.lees via Compfight cc
     
     

    ACTION ALERT

    Kinda, Sorta True, but Not Really

    Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
    But it isn’t.
    As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat your right to know.
    In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted a statement on its website stating that a “petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this [lawsuit against Vermont] litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.”
    “Completely false”? Not quite. Not only does Starbucks’ membership in the GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
    If Starbucks wants consumers to believe that the company is not, at least indirectly, party to the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, Starbucks needs to quit the GMA immediately.
    TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
     
     

    SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF

    Alliance of Cranks

    Speaking at the Slow Money conference in Louisville, Ky., last week, Mary Berry shared an anecdote about her father, Wendell Berry. Mary told the story in the context of a panel discussion about advancing the organic movement in the face of great obstacles—as in, for instance, Monsanto. And federal, state and local laws that hinder, instead of help, local organic farmers.

    Her father, said Mary, once remarked that that in order to keep going in discouraging times, it takes an “alliance of cranks.”

    This movement to return to sustainable, organic and regenerative agriculture is a movement of hope. Hope for a healthier ecosystem. Hope for healthier communities. Hope for a generation of healthier children.

    It’s also a movement that has faced more than its share of discouraging news. And powerful opponents.

    Thankfully, this movement, your movement, is powered by strong, intelligent, caring, responsible, hard-working, passionate, well-intentioned and yes, sometimes complaining, citizens and consumers.

    Welcome to our “alliance of cranks.” Together, we will prevail.

    Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education).
    Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Oregon, Colorado and other states)
     
     

    ACTION ALERT

    Vote Bayer into the Corporate Hall of Shame!

    It’s that time of year again. When the worst companies in the world compete for their rightful place in the Corporate Hall of Shame.
    This year we’re partnering with Corporate Accountability International to hold Bayer accountable for not only manufacturing the pesticides that kill bees, but for shifting the blame.
    By now, we all know that neonicotinoids are the primary culprit in Colony Collapse Disorder. We also know who stands to profit the most from selling neonics—Bayer CropScience is the world’s number one seller of neonics, with annual sales of over $1 billion.
    Yet to hear Bayer tell it, the neonic-maker is the honeybee’s best friend. It’s climate change that’s killing the bees, says Bayer. Or mites. But certainly not the pesticide-maker’s poisons.
    Bayer has even established the Bayer Bee Care Center in a disingenuous public relations move aimed at convincing consumers that the company is dedicated to protecting bees.
    It’s all part of Bayer’s “Tobacco-Style PR tactics,” outlined in this report by the Friends of the Earth.
    Bayer should be ashamed. It isn’t, of course. So it’s up to us to shame the world’s leading bee-killer.
    Vote Bayer into the Corporate Hall of Shame
     
     

    THANKSGIVING COVERAGE

    Meet Us in St. Louis

    Want your Thanksgiving to be extra meaningful this year? Join OCA and the folks from the Reverend Billy’s Church of Stop Shopping for an Organic Thanksgiving potluck dinner on Monsanto’s front lawn.
    Everyone is invited. All you need to bring is an organic dish to pass.
    The child-friendly dinner starts at 1.p.m. on Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 27, at Monsanto’s World Headquarters in Creve Coeur, Mo., a suburb of St. Louis. Tables will be provided, as will entertainment by a group of 30 singers from the Church of Stop Shopping.
    For more information, including how to organize a group from your area to attend, contact marnie@revbilly.com.
    If you live in the Chicago area and want to carpool to St. Louis, contact organicconsumerschicago@gmail.com Mike Durschmid.
    RSVP
    How and Why to Cook Organic this Thanksgiving
    How to buy a turkey
    Where to buy organic ingredients
    TAKE ACTION: Take the Cook Organic, not the Planet Pledge!
    Post photos and recipes from your organic Thanksgiving
     
     

    SOCIAL MEDIA NEWS

    +1 Us!

    Are you one of the more than 540 million people who use Google+? If so, now you can +1 OCA!
    OCA has recently joined the Google+ world and we’re looking forward to hanging out with you. If you’re already a member of Google+, just +1 us to connect. If you're not a Google+ member, sign up!
    Already a Google+ member? +1 OCA on Google+
    Not yet a Google+ member? Learn more
     
     

    LITTLE BYTES

    Essential Reading for the Week

    Vitamin D Deficiency Is Prevalent in Multiple Sclerosis
    Vermont Fights Attempt to Block GMO Labelling Law
    Organic Fish May Soon Be Coming and It Is a HORRIBLE Idea
    81% of Reviewed GM Crops Were Approved without Any Scientific Safety Studies, Researchers Find
    The Word 'Natural,' like Our Food, Has Become Polluted
    Turns out, the Future of Food Lies in These Old Seeds
    Syngenta Facing Dozens of Lawsuits over GMO Seed
     
    Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on web sites,
    print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!

    Organic Bytes is a publication of Organic Consumers Association

    6771 South Silver Hill Drive - Finland, MN 55603 - Phone: 218-226-4164 - Fax: 218-353-7652

    You are subscribed as:
    Vincent Nunes