With over 2.5 million square feet of greenhouse space,Living with the Landis a behemoth display of agricultural technology, including a giant gravity-defying tomato “tree” with thousands of tomato fruits, and various displays of unique growing techniques like hydroponics. But according to Jill Fehrenbacher fromInhabitat, a tour guide explained to her that most of the food grown in these greenhouses, which is also fed to park guests in restaurants and cafeterias throughout the parks, has been genetically-altered in some way.

This makes sense, since part of the tour includes a visit to the exhibit’s “Biotechnology Lab,” a “sterile research environment” sponsored by pro-GMO food giant Nestle USA, where scientists from theU.S. Department of Agriculturecan be seen working on various “crop improvement” techniques. After the tour, park guests can even purchase “Mickey’s Mini Gardens,” which are small glass bottles of plant starters made from cloned plant cells rather than from natural seeds, that were produced in Biotechnology Lab.

You can view some of Fehrenbacher’s photos taken at the exhibit here:
http://inhabitat.com/mickey-mouse-sustainable-farming/

Disney has been pushing GMOs on children since at least 1996

Genetic manipulation of plants and crops has apparently been taking place at Disney’sLiving with the Landexhibit for almost two decades now. Back in 1996, the USDA published an article in one of its publications explaining that the main purpose of the Biotechnology Lab at EPCOT has always been about “showcasing various tools — such as biotechnology” as part of its “sustainable agriculture” initiatives.

Even back then, John Cordts from the USDA’sAgricultural Research Service(ARS) admitted that he and others were working on various GMO projects in the lab, which at the time included exploring new ways to genetically-alter peaches to ripen longer on trees, yet stay firm enough to be shipped. And before that, then-manager of the Biotechnology Lab Lexie McKently had been working on developing GM peanuts (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/jul96/disney0796.htm).

And yet the millions of young children that have passed through this exhibit over the years have no idea that what those scientists are working on behind the glass has been shown to cause human sterilization, organ damage, and death. Because the entire presentation is dressed up with cute Disney characters and fun animations, it all just looks like some type of agricultural utopia.

Interestingly, the veneer of Disney’s supposed sustainable and pollution-less approach to agricultural runs thin in others areas as well, as Fehrenbacher’s tour revealed the use of materials like non-biodegradable styrofoam to house plants, for instance. When asked by several guests why the exhibit featured styrofoam and other environmentally-unfriendly materials, the tour guide allegedly explained that these materials are inexpensive and easily disposable.

So as is the case with most things Disney, theLiving with the Landexhibit appears to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled veneer of propaganda aimed directly at young children. And in this case, the Disney empire has “greenwashed” biotechnology as an environmentally-friendly and sustainable agricultural system of the future in order to convince the next generation that it provides great benefits to humanity.

Using iconic cartoon characters to indoctrinate children into supporting toxic GMOs is the epitome of evil

It is no secret that millions of families from around the world make the trek to Orlando, Fla., every year to visit Walt Disney World theme parks specifically because they believe it is a safe and fun environment for children. Little do many of them know, however, that part of Disney’s apparent agenda is to indoctrinate society’s youngest and most innocent members into the phony dogma of biotechnology.

Deliberately shaping a genetically-modified pumpkin into the shape of Mickey Mouse ears, for example, would probably not sway mostNaturalNewsreaders into thinking that the technology is safe. But to a child, this explicit form of manipulation appears fun and exciting, which subconsciously instills in him or her the idea that genetically-tampering with nature in this way is a good thing.

Because they cannot present a legitimate and scientific argument for why GMOs are safe or necessary in the first place, purveyors of biotechnology are now resorting to such blatant brainwashing campaigns aimed directly at young children. This is why parents everywhere need to take the time to explain to their children the truth about GMOs, and teach them how to deflect all the crafty propaganda that is increasingly being embedded in popular cultural icons like Disney.

SOURCE: http://www.naturalnews.com/035861_Disney_World_GMO_agriculture.html#ixzz1urpcauxx

Last week, the University of Illinois’ College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES) in Champaign-Urbana made a momentous announcement: it has accepted a $250,000 grant from genetically modified seed/agrichemical giant Monsanto to create an endowed chair for the “Agricultural Communications Program” it runs with the College of Communications.

The university’s press release quotes Monsanto’s vice president of technology communications giving a taste of its vision for the investment:

With the population expecting to reach 9 billion by 2030, farmers from Illinois and beyond will be asked to produce more crops while using fewer resources. At Monsanto we are committed to bringing farmers advanced ag technologies to help them meet this challenge. Effectively communicating farmers’ efforts to feed, clothe and fuel a rapidly growing population is a major part of the solution.

A cynic might translate that statement this way: In order to maintain our highly profitable and hotly contested business model, we’ll need a new generation of PR professionals to construct and disseminate our marketing message.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

In a ruling given by a court in Lyon (southeast France), Francois says that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on the product label. The court ordered an expert opinion to determine the sum of the damages, and to verify the link between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The case is extremely important, as previous legal action taken against Monsanto by farmers has failed due to the challenge of properly linking pesticide exposure with the experienced side effects.

When contacted by Reuters, Monsanto’s lawyers declined to comment.

Monsanto’s Deadly Concoctions

Farmer Paul Francois was not alone in his quest to hold Monsanto accountable for their actions. He and other farmers affected by Monsanto’s deadly concoctions actually founded an association last year to make the case that their health problems were a result of Monsanto’s Lasso and other ‘crop protection’ products. Their claims were also met by many other farmers. Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides. However only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years.

Francois, whose life was damaged by Monsanto’s products, has now set the powerful precedent in the defense of farmers.

“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this,” Francois, 47, told Reuters.

It is also important to note that Monsanto’s Lasso pesticide was actually banned in France back in 2007 following a European Union directive that came after the ban of the product in other nations.

SOURCE:   http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-france/

By Anthony Gucciardi

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Did Monsanto actually plant genetically modified alfalfa before it was deregulated by the USDA? There is some shocking evidence that, until recently, was withheld from the public showing that Monsanto’s genetically altered alfalfa may have been set free in 2003 — a full two years or more before it was deregulated in 2005. In a letter, obtained by NaturalSociety with permission to post for public viewing, it becomes clear that the USDA may have turned a blind eye to the entire situation, allowing widespread GMO contamination of GMO-free crops.

Amazingly, the letter actually proves that the USDA was fully aware of the situation. In order to fully understand the intricate details of this event, it is first important to understand a few key factors regarding alfalfa and its connection to the entire food supply.

Alfalfa is a perennial plant that grows for more than 2 years and may not need to be replanted each year like annuals.  Because it is a perennial plant, it is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. Interestingly, the modified alfalfa — created by Monsanto in partner with a group known as Forage Genetics — was the first perennial plant to be deregulated for open planting by the USDA. But did Monsanto unleash the plant before this occurred?

This is very serious because it is only a matter of time before alfalfa across America could be corrupted with Monsanto’s patented genetically modified trait.  Organic meat and dairy could be tainted when animals are fed the modified alfalfa as well, threatening the very integrity of the organic food supply.  What’s more, the contamination of natural alfalfa could be nearly impossible — if not entirely impossible — to remedy, so it could actually fracture the genetic stability of the entire crop on a global scale.

Shocking Letter Reveals Monsanto’s Contamination Dates Back 2 Years Before Deregulation

A letter from Cal/West Seeds shows that evidence of contamination was withheld and the USDA turned a blind eye to proof of contamination in 2005 which shows it was planted at least two years before it was initially deregulated in 2005. As you can see for yourself, the official letter states:

We first discovered the unintended presence of the Roundup Ready gene in our conventional alfalfa seeds in 2005. It was identified in one of our foundation seed production lots grown in California. We tested the foundation seed lot priot to shipping it to a producer who intended to plant it for organic seed production.

In another telling segment, the author writes:

We detected the presence of the … Roundup Ready gene in both our foundation seed and certified seed prior to deregulation.

In order to protect the safety of the individual, some further contents cannot be divulged. Remember in the past, those who have stood up against Monsanto have received anonymous death threats — in one case, the threats were directed towards a mother and her children.

This video documents the timeline of events that led to the deregulation of Monsanto & Forage Genetics’ GMOalfalfa that is contaminating natural alfalfa. As the video explains, the lawyers representing the farmers against Monsanto failed to hold an evidentiary hearing so the injunction (ban) against planting GMO alfalfa was removed and the case was sent back to the lower district court.  The lawyers pursued no further action on this case.

Contamination levels are still very low, but will undoubtedly increase over time with unexpected results (like superweeds), so stopping the further planting of GM plants like alfalfa is of high concern.  Furthermore, it would set a precedent for banning other GMO perennial plants as well — a monumental move in the legislative fight against GMOs. This letter, compounded with the other evidence presented in this article, is paramount in displaying just how serious of an issue genetic contamination is. What’s more, the USDA appears to have known the entire time. It’s time to spread the word.

SOURCE:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/05/04/letter-shows-monsanto-planted-gmos-before-usda-approval/

Coming soon to a forest or landscape near you: Franken trees and Franken grasses

In recent years, Monsanto and ArborGen have been developing GM trees including trees modified to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup, trees designed with a reduced lignin content to appeal to paper making and construction industries (lignin gives trees their strength and rigidity) and “terminator trees” which don’t produce seeds. In Hawaii, there has already been a contamination issue with GM papaya – the world’s first commercially planted genetically engineered tree.

One of the GM trees currently being readied planting is GM Eucalyptus, despite numerous unresolved and unstudied concerns such as:

*Cryptococcus neoformans gattii, a yeast pathogen hosted by a variety of Eucalyptus species. It causes systemic fungal infections in humans, leading to fungal meningitis and death.

*Cold tolerance C-Repeat Binding Factor (CBF) genes such as those found in transgenic Eucalyptus trees that have been associated with stunted growth and production in potatoes. CBF gene modification produces highly pleiotropic effects but there does not appear to have been any investigation on the production of unintended metabolites, proteins, or nuclei acids in the modified trees.

*Transgenes, such as the ones involved in the Agrobacterium vector used in creating the transgenic trees, which can enlarge their host range to infect other species and exchange genes with them through hormones produced at the site of plant wounds.

*As reported by MSNBC and PLoS Pathogens, a new strain of a deadly fungus, Cryptococcus gattii, that has been causing fatal human illnesses throughout the Pacific Northwest. The fungus, which is known to grow on eucalyptus trees, has killed 40 out of 220 people infected throughout the region. The reduced lignin in GM eucalyptus has raised concerns that the trees could be more susceptible to infection.

*Pollen from GM Eucalyptus trees can travel almost twice as far as the ArboGen application stated. Pollen from other GM trees can travel for over 40 kilometers.

One way Monsanto has used to escape scrutiny of their GM Eucalyptus is by declaring most, if not all of the genetically modified components to be ‘Confidential Business information’ (CBI). The CBI designation prevents independent evaluation of the full impact of GM eucalyptus on the environment and on human and animal health.

The USDA recently handed Monsanto and their client lawn seed company Scotts a huge victory by deciding to not regulate Roundup Ready Scotts Kentucky Bluegrass. The USDA had previously echoed warnings by the Center for Technology Assessment that GM bluegrass could become an “environmental nightmare”.

Grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass have light and easily dispersed pollen. Thus, the likelihood of polluting existing strains is virtually certain as has happened in Oregon where Roundup Ready bentgrass has become a scourge.

So, get ready for even more toxic poisons in the coming plague of glyphosate-resistant plants gone wild. Also expect Monsanto to demand that payment for infringing on their patents, as they have with farmers whose crops have been adulterated by Monsanto’s seed pollen.

A sure formula for disaster

Easy approval of GM grasses and trees combined with insufficient testing and lack of oversight is an almost certain formula for future disaster. As we have seen with other Monsanto GM plants, once the GM genie is out of the bottle it is pretty much impossible to put it back in.

SOURCE:   http://www.naturalnews.com/035699_Monsanto_GMO_trees.html

NaturalNews is helping the Cornucopia Institute break this story with exclusive articles and email alerts going out to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. This story is being shared on Facebook and Twitter, and on the NaturalNews Radio Network (www.NaturalNewsRadio.com). This story will also be covered this Thursday on the Alex Jones Show (www.InfoWars.com), when a representative from the Cornucopia Institute will be interviewed on live national radio. You can help spread the word about this important story bysharing this article.

Three facts you need to know about GMOs before you read the explosive test results below

Before you view the Cornucopia’s test results below, there are three important things you need to know about GMOs:

#1) There is GE contamination in almost everything. Even “non-GMO” food products almost always contain trace levels of GMOs (often between .01% and 0.5%). A test for the mere presence of GMOs is not considered conclusive. What’s important is thelevelof GMOs in a particular food item. Some of the “natural” items tested by the Cornucopia Institute showed GMO contamination levels between 28 and 100 %, which means the key ingredients in those cereals are most definitely genetically engineered from the source (and it’s not just a chance contamination from some other nearby field).

#2) All GMO tests are merely a “snapshot” that can change over time. Foods that test free of GMOs today may contain higher levels tomorrow due to supply line errors, contamination, supply source changes, and so on. At the same time, foods that test at high levels of GMOs today may test at lower levels in the future or even for different batches from the same manufacturer. Sometimes manufacturers are lied to by their suppliers. Some manufacturers test for GMOs in every batch, but others take a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach where they don’t test because they’d rather not know.

#3) Products may be “enrolled” in the Non-GMO Project and still contain GMOs before they are “verified.”The Non-GMO Project has two designations for products. There are products which are “enrolled” which means they are “on the path” to becoming free of GMOs but may not have achieved it yet. Thus, it is true that products “enrolled” in the Non-GMO Project may still contain substantial levels of GMOs. Products that meet far more stringent supply line audits and GE testing requirements are granted the label “Verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

You got all that? It’s a lot to keep in mind. GMOs are a complicated issue. But one thing is certain: Most “natural” breakfast cereals contain surprisingly high levels of genetically engineered ingredients. This is why it’s crucial to shop forcertified organicbreakfast cereals from companies like Nature’s Path, whose products are 100% certified organic and free from GMOs.

All these concerns about GMOs don’t even cover residues of toxic and carcinogenic pesticides in the grains used to produce “natural” breakfast cereals. The Cornucopia report cites extensive USDA testing and research revealing which “natural” grains and ingredients may be routinely contaminated with chemical pesticides. Synthetic pesticides are banned in organic production with oversight by independent certifiers and USDA accreditation, so organic is once again the way to go if you wish to avoid pesticide residues.

Keep reading to see some of the shocking test results uncovered by the Cornucopia Institute…

Here’s what the test results reveal

The Cornucopia Institute’s “Cereal Scorecard” (http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/) reveals some truly astonishing facts about what’s in our breakfast cereal:

• Kashi brand cereals (Kellogg’s) contains “high levels” of GMOs. Not just a trace of GMOs, in other words, but a high level meaning the key ingredients are genetically engineered from the get-go. In fact, NaturalNews has learned that test results reveal 100% of the soy used in tested boxes of Kashi cereal was genetically engineered soy.

• Mother’s brand cereals (PepsiCo) contains “high levels” of GMOs. Test results revealed28% of the cornto be genetically engineered.

• Whole Foods’ 365 brand Corn Flakes contains “high levels” of GMOs (more than 50% GE corn).

• Barbara’s Bakery Puffins cereal was also shown to contain more than 50% genetically engineered corn.

• Both Barbara’s Bakery Puffins and Whole Foods 365 Corn Flakes are “enrolled” in the Non-GMO Project, says Cornucopia (see below). Note that this does not mean “verified” by the Non-GMO Project, which is a different designation. Still, the term “enrolled” in the Non-GMO Project may imply to many shoppers that the products are free from GMOs. This is something NaturalNews will address later, as it is a concern for both us and many readers who have long believed that any affiliation with the Non-GMO Project meant the same thing as “GMO free,” which it does not.

• One of the shining exampleshonest organic cerealisNature’s Path, whose products are all certified organic, contained no significant GMO contamination and are clearly made with entirely non-GMO ingredients.

• As the report states:Numerous “natural” products were indeed contaminated with high levels of GE ingredients, sometimes as high as 100%: Kashi GoLean, Mother’s Bumpers, Nutritious Living Hi-Lo, and General Mills Kix.

• Kashi Heart to Heart Blueberry cereal costsmorethan Nature’s Path Organic Blueberry Cinnamon Optimum Cereal, and yet the grains used in Kashi cereal were found by the USDA, to typically contain residues of all the following pesticide chemicals:phosmet, carbaryl, azinphos methyl, malathion, chlorpyrifos methyl, chlorpyrifos. (Note: This does not mean these Kashi cereals were tested for each of these chemicals, only that these chemicals are admitted by the USDA to be found in the non-organic grains used to manufacture Kashi cereals.)

• Quaker Oats states that it is an “all-natural” product. But Quaker Oats (a unit of PepsiCo) manages a processing plant that emits roughly 19,000 pounds ofsulfuryl fluorideyearly. Sulfuryl fluoride is a toxic greenhouse gas used to treat crops like oats in storage.

• “Natural” Peace Cereal Wild Berry Crisp is produced from conventional commodity ingredients commonly containing the neurotoxinphosmetand the carcinogencaptanin 11% and 55% of samples, respectively.

• Mom’s Best Naturals Raisin Bran cereal contains “natural” (non-GMO) ingredients that are commonly contaminated withmalathionandphosmetchemicals, both of which are neurotoxins.

• Several Bear Naked and Kashi products contain conventional soy protein. Soy protein in this country is nearly universally hexane-extracted. The “hexane bath” that the soybeans are immersed in consists of more than 50% n-hexane, which is a known neurotoxin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Where you can learn more

What you’ve read here are only the highlights of this groundbreaking research report. You can learn more in the following ways:

Quick 4-minute video overview on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw2uEupTwo

Or view it on NaturalNews.TV at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=15C9C662CC545B8E96934878801B85DF

View the Scorecard page or download the PDF report:
http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/

Keep reading NaturalNews

NaturalNews plans to bring you additional coverage of this breaking news, including feedback from the Non-GMO Project and others. This research obviously raises many questions and concerns about GMOs in “natural” products which need to be carefully addressed.

The quick conclusion from all this is that if you really want to be 100% safe from GMOs in your breakfast cereal, buyNature’s Pathcereals. They are the best of the best, and they don’t play games with “natural” labeling that might mislead consumers. Nature’s Path is also supporting the mandatory GMO labeling initiative in California.

Some other trusted cereal sources, according to the Cornucopia Scorecard, include Kaia, Laughing Giraffe, Lydia’s Organics and Two Moms In the Raw.

Some of the brands that didn’t score well on the Cornucopia’s Scorecard include Bear Naked, Kashi, Mom’s Best, General Mills, Barbara’s Bakery, Health Valley, Back to Nature, Arrowhead Mills, Bob’s Red Mill and Post Natural.

SOURCE:   http://www.naturalnews.com/033838_breakfast_cereals_GMOs.html

If the Governor’s words this past week are any indication, he’s already surrendered to Monsanto. But Vermonters, not known for backing down from a fight, are challenging legislators to take on the biotech industry. They’re even offering to raise money for the state’s defense.

Last week thousands of Vermonters flooded the Governor’s office with petitions, phone calls and emails, to make the case for GMO labeling of all food sold in Vermont and to demand a vote on the bill. Under Vermont’s constitution, the Governor can extend the state’s legislative session indefinitely, ultimately forcing a vote on the bill. If he doesn’t extend the session, or urge legislators to vote on the bill, it will die in committee.

But while supporters were emailing and phoning and signing, Governor Shumlin was sending out a canned response to the thousands of supporters who emailed his office. In the Governor’s own words:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about labeling genetically modified foods. I agree with those who advocate for clear labeling of genetically modified foods. GMO labeling makes sense and would give Vermonters key information about their food choices. However, we know from attempts to pass similar legislation in the past that such a requirement would not stand up to federal legal scrutiny. I don’t think it is fair to ask Vermonters to bear the burden of the cost of those legal challenges…

On April 12, in the hope once again of forcing a vote, more than 300 people packed the Vermont statehouse for public testimony on H.722, with more than one hundred of them testifying — every single one in favor — of passing the bill. When legislators brought up the burden of a potential legal battle, supporters of the bill called for a legal defense fund — not a retreat.

However, a bill that once appeared destined to pass on the merits of scientific evidence, overwhelming public support, and support of the majority of Vermont’s progressive legislators, now appears doomed — unless Vermont voters succeed in changing the Governor’s mind.

A brief history of Vermont H.722

In mid-December, a coalition of farmers and Vermont NGOs asked the state to revive a GMO labeling bill that in 2011 had stalled in the house agricultural committee. Supporters proposed revising the bill’s language to conform to language in a similar bill currently being proposed in California, through a citizens’ ballot initiative process. Both Carolyn Partridge, chairman of the House agricultural committee, and Will Stevens, a member of the agriculture committee, responded favorably. Several legislators stepped forward to sponsor and co-sponsor the bill.

Despite the support of Partridge, Stevens and the majority of Vermont voters, the committee didn’t even begin hearings on the bill until March. Finally, during the first round of testimony the legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses including organic farmers concerned about seed contamination, consumers worried about food safety, and scientists who refuted Monsanto’s claims that genetically engineered food is perfectly safe. Still, no vote. Instead, the committee called for more hearings.

Although Partridgepublicly voiced support, privately she told Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont, that H.722 was a “hot potato” that she got “stuck” with because no other committee wanted to host it, according to Stander.

How does a bill backed by strong scientific evidence and 90 percent of the voters become a “hot potato”? When Monsanto threatens to sue the state if it passes. It’s now common knowledge that Vermont officials are worried about the cost of a legal battle with Monsanto. Last week, the online newspaperVTdigger.org reported:“Rachel Lattimore, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who has represented the Biotechnology Industry Association, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies, told the committee and one of its attorneys that Vermont would face a lawsuit from the industry if it passed this bill.”

Monsanto’s intimidation tactics appear to have succeeded. However, Vermont voters continue to pressure Governor Shumlin to sit down with his lawyers and the lawyers who drafted Bill H722 to determine, after a careful legal analysis, if he wants to promote the bill or obstruct it.

In support of Vermont farmers and consumers, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has launched its own offensive, in the form of a legal defense fund for Vermont and any other state Monsanto threatens to sue over mandatory GMO labeling laws. The OCA is a nationwide organization of organic farmers and consumers that has fought for consumers’ right to know about GMOs for more than a decade. According to Katherine Paul, OCA fundraising coordinator, “Over the past four days we’ve already received commitments of more than $50,000 to defend Vermont or any other state that passes a GMO labeling bill. The only way to back down a legal bully like Monsanto or the Biotechnology Industry Organization is with a bigger legal stick and the moral high ground. Let’s make sure we have both of those.”

Fifty countries have passed GMO labeling laws, in large part based upon peer-reviewed studies suggesting that GMO crops and foods are hazardous to animal and human health and the environment. Recent GMO feeding studies have found liver abnormalities in 30.8 percent of the female test animals, kidney abnormalities in 43.5 percent of the male test animals, and a thickening of the stomach lining in almost all the tests. These results and results from numerous other tests were troubling enough for all these other countries to label genetically engineered foods so that there was traceability and so that consumers could make a choice.

Currently in the U.S., consumers are not allowed to choose whether they want to be part of a vast GMO feeding experiment. If they become ill or have an allergic reaction to a food product that has been genetically engineered, they cannot trace it back to the source. Consumers have no way of knowing which foods contain genetically modified ingredients and which do not. Most have no idea that 75 percent or more of non-organic processed foods do contain GMOs. Even fewer understand that thousands of foods labeled or advertised as “natural” or “all natural” contain genetically modified ingredients.

Vermont, perhaps more than any other state, has traditionally done the right thing to protect its citizens and the environment. This time fear of Monsanto and the other gene giants has sapped the courage and commitment of the current Governor and the legislature.

Please call Governor Shumlin ( 802 828-3333 ) and tell him to stand up to Monsanto bullying. Tell him to publicly speak out and encourage the House and Senate to speed up the review process, pass the GMO labeling bill, and sign it before the legislative session ends on May 1.

And pleasesupportthe OCA’s “Millions against Monsanto” campaign so that Governor Shumlin and all the other states can feel secure in fighting Monsanto in court. If the Governor and legislators surrender now, they will perpetuate claims that progressive politicians are good at promising change, but lack the backbone to follow through on their rhetoric. If they show real courage and pass H.722, they will send a strong message to Monsanto and Big Biotech that the growing Millions against Monsanto movement will do whatever it takes — includingmounting a legal defense– to stop the corporate bullying and take back our food supply.

Will Allen is the co-manager of Cedar Circle Farm in East Thetford, Vermont. He is also the Author of The War on Bugs , a history of farm pesticides and fertilizers since 1810. He is on the policy advisory boards of The Organic Consumers Association and Willing Hands. He has attended all of the agriculture committee hearings on H-722, where the testimony referred to above was delivered.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Millions against Monsanto campaign. He also is a member of the Steering Committee of the California Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and co-author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.

SOURCE:      http://www.naturalnews.com/035635_Vermont_Monsanto_GMO_labeling.html

By Anthony Gucciardi

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

After the Nepalese government decided to allow Monsanto into their borders and subsequently force farmers to use genetically modified seeds, the citizens took to the streets. The starving nation let Monsanto in despite recent and massive bans in a number of EU countries. In addition, Monsanto’s GMO crops have been shown by a team of 900 scientists to be virtually ineffective at combating starvation — in fact, they perform way worse than traditional and sustainable agriculture.

Now, according to some Nepal-based activists, Monsanto has been run out of the country by fierce protesting. Threatening the nation’s main crop, corn, Monsanto’s GM corn would certainly not help the 40% of Nepalese citizens who are currently malnourished. It seems that the Nepalese people are quite aware of this fact as well, as hordes of activists demonstrated their opposition to Monsanto and genetically modified creations on the city streets. Hundreds of the anti-Monsanto activists gathered in Kathmandu in front of the U.S. embassy, pouring out from their homes just shortly after the announcement was made.

According to the activist group ‘Stop Monsanto in Nepal’, the protests may have succeeded. In a post on Facebook on April 6th, the group stated:

Celebrating Victory! We knew from internal sources that the Nepal-Monsanto-USAID deal was postponed indefinitely but we didn’t have a public document to claim the victory officially. But Hari Dahal, Joint secretary and Spokesperson for the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoAC) mentioned on a recent ‘BBC Sajha Sawal’ that Monsanto will NOT be allowed in Nepal.

The news comes just after Monsanto was taken to court over ‘knowingly poisoning workers‘ and causing devastating birth defects. Argentinean tobacco farmers stated that the biotech giant knowingly poisoned them with herbicides and pesticides and subsequently caused ”devastating birth defects” in their children.

About the Author

Anthony Gucciardi is an accomplished investigative journalist with a passion for natural health. Anthony’s articles have been featured on top alternative news websites such as Infowars, NaturalNews, Rense, and many others. Anthony is the co-founder of Natural Society, a website dedicated to sharing life-saving natural health techniques.

SOURCE:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/18/street-riots-form-in-response-to-monsanto-intrusion-into-nepal/

Associated Wholesale Grocers(AWG), a retailer-owned cooperative representing the grocery industry, says that on three separate occasions,Hersheycolluded withMars,Nestle, andCadburyto collectively increase chocolate prices all at the same. These illegal price fixings allegedly occurred in 2002, 2004 and 2007.

“In the face of this drop in demand and the prospect of declining revenue, defendants colluded in order to increase their prices, revenues and profits,” says the complaint. “Starting in late 2002, pursuant to an unlawful agreement to fix prices, defendants engaged in a series of coordinated price increases on their chocolate candy products in the United States.”

According to the filing,Marswas the first company to raise its prices in 2002, hiking up the prices of its regular-sized candy bars 10.7 percent that year, and its multi-pack bars by 22 percent. A few days later, Hershey also jacked the prices of its regular-sized bars by 10.7 percent, as well as its king-sized bars by 13.6 percent and its ten-pack bars by 15.4 percent. And just days after that, Nestle reportedly made similar price hikes.

Such activity allegedly took place again in 2004 and in 2007, with each of the companies claiming that the hikes were due to increased costs associated with raw materials and transportation. But AWG says these claims were a lie, and that the chocolate giants were merely trying to preserve their own profits and relevancy in a slowly-dying market.

“Defendants’ repeated public assertions that the price increases resulted from increased input costs were false and pretextual,” says the complaint. “The price increases resulted from an express agreement among defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices on chocolate candy products in the United States.”

Hershey, Mars, Nestle, and Cadbury all use genetically-modified ingredients in their chocolate products

Beyond allegations of illegal collusion, it is important to note that each of the companies that is the subject of the new complaint uses genetically-modified (GM) ingredients in its chocolate candy products.Hershey, for instance, continues to use GM sugar and soy in its U.S. chocolate products, despite having switched to non-GM ingredients for the European market (http://www.naturalnews.com/030826_Hersheys_GMOs.html).

AndNestle, the world’s largest food and nutrition company, openly admits that it uses GMOs in its American product lines on itsFrequently Asked Questions, defending this use with fradulent claims that GMOs actually improve health.

SOURCE:   http://www.naturalnews.com/035595_Hershey_price_fixing_chocolate.html