Anti-GMO 'Santo' movie appears to have been the victim of an elaborate disinfo campaign involving social media operatives

(NaturalNews) A Natural News investigation has been conducted into the anti-Monsanto movie named "Santo," which has garnered an enormous amount of attention over the past few weeks. (Click here to see the movie preview.)

You may be aware that the movie and the filmmaker have been under fire for the past two weeks, with accusations flying around social media that the film was a bogus project run by a non-existent person. The Twitterverse and FB have exploded with these accusations, and there has been considerable debate within the movement over this film. Even here at Natural News, we inadvertently contributed to the suspicion with a couple of paragraphs I wrote in a story about "false gurus."

As part of the investigation to get to the bottom of this, I spoke with the filmmaker, the filmmaker's legal counsel, the founder of March Against Monsanto, a well-known anti-GMO activist who is contributing to the film (see below), and several other individuals with firsthand knowledge. I recorded an interview with the filmmaker (stage name "Robert Everest") that you can also hear below. Or go straight to the interview posted on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7dkBcj_axg

Victimized by an elaborate social media smear campaign

While I can't be 100% certain of anything these days, based on our investigation I can say with a high degree of certainty that Santo appears to have been the victim of a highly organized, elaborate disinfo scheme that sought to destroy the film's credibility and thereby deny it grassroots funding.

The filmmaker probably made the suspicions worse in three ways, according to my investigation and based on the interviews with multiple people who have firsthand knowledge of all this:

1) The filmmaker has a bit of a callous, confrontational communications style, which actually might make him the perfect filmmaker to tackle the subject of Monsanto. But it also rubbed some people the wrong way.

2) He used a new stage name in order to protect his identity, causing immediate suspicion about his identity and his background. He also refused to release his real name, which in my view is quite understandable given the very real threats that now accompany anyone who chooses to be a highly visible anti-GMO activist. Nevertheless, the anti-GMO community is rightly suspicious of "new faces" who start asking for big donation dollars.

3) He appeared to be somewhat aggressive in asking for donations for the film, a fact that I think is mostly due to his passion for the project being driven by the relatively recent cancer death of his own mother, a victim of the cancer establishment which operates in much the same way as the biotech industry. (He publicly disclosed this information in the interview, so I'm not violating his privacy by revealing this.)

For one reason or another, Robert Everest managed to ruffle a few feathers in the industry... or at least raise some red flags. This seems to have been seized on by pro-Monsanto opportunists (who may actually be hired negative P.R. trolls) to sow distrust and suspicion about the film.

The ultimate goal of this "paranoia campaign" was to halt donation funding for the film and hopefully see the film fail (thereby helping the biotech industry avoid taking another bullet in terms of public perception).

Substantiating documentation

The campaign very nearly succeeded. But today I decided I needed to talk with the filmmaker directly, so I acquired his phone number through a well-connected colleague and contacted him for a conversation. From there, the real story started to unfold -- a story that has now been largely substantiated as you can see here.

I was also able to acquire some documentation supporting the validity of the filmmaker and his fundraising efforts. The image below shows an email from the IndieGoGo fraud investigator who examined the identity of Robert Everest and concluded he was legit. This IndieGoGo fraud investigator, I learned, is a former Wells Fargo fraud investigator who joined IndieGoGo in May of this year and oversee's IndieGoGo's highest-complexity fraud cases. He has substantial knowledge and experience in detecting money laundering schemes. His name is Matt Canty.

The fact that Matt Canty gave the Santo film fundraising effort a thumbs up is significant. It means that the accusations that the Santo filmmaker was a "fake person" using a "fake company" to promote a "fake film" were almost certainly false, unless you believe that Matt Canty is a terrible fraud analyst (which is highly unlikely). In reality, the filmmaker was a real person using a stage name -- a common practice in the movie and film industry.

Here's an image of the confirmation statement from IndieGoGo:

March Against Monsanto supports the film

As part of my investigation, I also spoke with Tami Canal, founder of the March Against Monsanto. On the recording, she told me the following:

I think that it's shocking how more people haven't yet gotten behind it in the GMO-free coalition, because I really feel Robert is on our side, and we have this forum to really reach the masses. I think more people should get on board with the film. I really support it. We all need to support it. Nobody else is coming forth with a plan to reach the masses in such a poetic way. This could be the thing that really catapults the cause... and this is a great thing to bring awareness. - Tami Canal, founder of March Against Monsanto

I also spoke with Pamm Larry, the originator of Prop 37 in California (the GMO labeling bill that narrowly failed last year). She confirmed her optimism for the film and also confirmed that she is contributing to the film and hopes to see it receive enough support to become a success.

I also spoke with Robert's attorneys in California who have promised to provide additional documentation that we may release to the public in the next day or so. Through an old journalism trick I learned from colleagues, I was also able to 100% confirm that the attorney I spoke to is not an actor but is legitimately a California-licensed practicing attorney for a legitimate law firm.

If Robert had been scamming me, I would have caught him in multiple lies through this due diligence process, but that never happened. My investigation revealed, time and time again, that Robert was telling the truth. Unless he is some sort of spooky NSA operative with a massive secret infrastructure backing him up in an effort to destroy Monsanto, there's no way he could have faked all the things I checked out. The only reasonable conclusion from all this is that the guy seems, by all accounts, to be legit. Therefore, the accusations against him were without basis.

I've decided to donate to the film

Here's my summary of all this: The bottom line is that the Santo film appears to be quite real. The filmmaker is real and has a substantial, genuine history of filmmaking and other talents in the film industry. While I can't personally guarantee any film is going to get made, I can tell you that from my investigation on this, the accusations against the Santo filmmaker appear to be utterly false and fabricated.

That being said, yes, "Robert Everest" is a blunt speaker who may come off as callous to some. He has a kind of "bulldog" attitude and communications style, so he's not going to win any popularity awards across the industry. He may, however, turn out to be a highly effective filmmaker.

While I can't tell you what to do with your money, I've decided to personally donate to Robert's film project at the IdieGoGo.com page:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/santo-7-13-15-gmo-movie

I've also informed Robert that there will be a LOT of scrutiny surrounding him and his film, and that we want to see regular updates and video teasers as production gets under way.



Also see the March Against Monsanto FB page at:
http://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

BTW, the anti-GMO community really needs to come together in unity if we hope to achieve victory against GMOs.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041529_Santo_movie_filmmaker_Robert_Everest.html#ixzz2bO5DtFYj

French nurse rents out her breasts to gay parents who need to breastfeed adopted baby

(NaturalNews) It may seem odd to some and it's certainly not an ideal solution to everyone, but a French nurse has come up with a rather novel scheme to help gay couples provide their adopted infant children with a healthy start in life.

According to International Business Times, the nurse has placed an advertisement in local venues offering to rent out her breasts to gay couples who cannot feed their babies. Her breast service can be had for €100 (about $133) a day.

The ad, posted online, says she is a "young mother who is in good health."

The 29-year-old mother's ad has "caused a stir in France following the proposal as the European nation is divided over the gay marriage bill, which was passed earlier this year amid protests," the paper reported.

'Don't bother if you're not serious'

More from IBT:

The advertisement has been posted under the username "cecelia232" on the e-loue.com website. The post titled "Breast rental - breast-feeding - Boulogne", offers services in one of the neighborhoods on the outskirts of Paris.

"I am a young mother in full health, a trained nurse, 29 years old, and I'm renting out my breasts to feed young babies. In one day I can offer you up to a dozen feeds for your baby. Gay men in couples are not able to breastfeed their babies.... Breastfeeding allows babies to be in good health. Basically, breast milk gives them complete nutrition," says her post.

Needless to say, the ad has caught more than just a few peoples' attention. IBT reported that moderators of the site were initially uncomfortable with the nurse's ad, apparently contacting her to ensure that her offer was genuine.

"Contact me through the site. Don't bother if you're not serious," she said.

The next question is whether or not renting out breast milk somehow runs afoul of French law. The paper reported that French legal experts are divided over whether or not it's allowable, as it has raised questions about the potential for infection from the woman to children.

But apparently, the nurse's offer isn't the first of its kind. In 2011, when an attempt was made to source breast milk via Facebook, Professor Jean-Charles Picaud, president of the French Association of Human Milk Banks, and Professor Pierre-Henri Jarreau, president of the French Society of Neonatalogy, said in a joint statement, "These risks are mainly infectious, because the milk can be contaminated by bacteria or viruses."

'I don't want to waste my milk'

The notion of other mothers providing children with breast milk has really taken off in China, where it has become a booming online business, CNN reports:

Like many mothers, Yan breastfeeds her child. But she's also found a way of making it pay. After noticing she produces more than she needs, Yan -- who lives with her five-month-old baby in Shenyang, the capital of China's northern Liaoning Province -- decided to sell it.

"I don't want to waste my milk," she said. "I heard that others sell breast milk online, and I thought 'Why not sell mine?' I created a Web page and started my business."

CNN performed a search for "breast milk" on 58.com, a Chinese online shopping site, and it revealed "no shortage of mothers offering to sell their breast milk." In many of the country's urban centers, scores of mothers are selling.

"I just need to wait for calls," said Yan. "I provide fresh and frozen breast milk. But you have to pick it up yourself."

She says the market price for breast milk is about 5,000 RMB, or about $814, per month. So, though pricey, it's a much better option for children.

Maybe the French nurse will start a similar trend in her country.

Sources:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk

http://www.cnn.com

http://www.scientificamerican.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041544_breastfeeding_adopted_babies_gay_parents.html#ixzz2bO4V4OUP

Young woman's ovaries destroyed by Gardasil: Merck 'forgot to research' effects of vaccine on female reproduction

(NaturalNews) A newly-published study has revealed that Merck & Co., the corporate mastermind behind the infamous Gardasil vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), conveniently forgot to research the effects of this deadly vaccine on women's reproductive systems. And at least one young woman, in this case from Australia, bore the brunt of this inexcusable failure after discovering that her own ovaries had been completely destroyed as a result of getting the vaccine.

Published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal (BMJ), the harrowing recount of this young 16-year-old girl's experience should give pause to all parents currently being pressured by their doctors into having their young daughters jabbed with Gardasil. Robbed of her natural ability to experience full womanhood, this young woman experienced early menopause, in which her ovaries completely shut down before they were even able to fully develop.

Entitled Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, this latest case study provides solid evidence that Gardasil is, at the very least, a serious threat to normal ovarian function. Not only was the damaged girl examined and verified to have had healthy ovaries prior to the shots, but there were no other identified factors besides Gardasil that could have possibly been involved in her sudden ill-fate.

Worse is the fact that information later obtained from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the case -- TGA is Australia's equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. -- revealed that Merck had never even conducted safety testing on Gardasil in relation to its effects on women's ovaries. According to the report, Merck had only tested Gardasil's effects on male testes.

"Although the TGA's Australian Public Assessment Report for Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine, February 2011, does report on the histology of vaccinated rat testes and epididymides, no histological report has been available for vaccinated rat ovaries," explains the report. "[A] histological report of the ovaries of vaccinated rats remained unavailable beyond a numbering of the corpora lutea present at postweaning euthanasia following the first litter."

In other words, Merck either intentionally or accidentally -- either option is completely unacceptable, by the way -- failed to check whether or not Gardasil has the potential to damage young women's reproductive systems, even though young women have always been the primary target market for the vaccine. Only recently have young boys been pulled into the Gardasil fray, despite the fact that the long-term side effects of the vaccine in males is still largely unknown.

Gardasil loaded with additives known to damage female reproduction

As reported by investigative journalist Heidi Stevenson, there are at least two additive ingredients in Gardasil that may be responsible for damaging women's ovaries. These ingredients are polysorbate 80, an emulsifying preservative, and L-histidine, a natural amino acid. Both of these ingredients are, of course, used in processed foods, which millions of people consume every day. But injecting them into the body has a much different biological effect than simply consuming them.

As it turns out, polysorbate 80, which also goes by the names Tween 80, Alkest, and Canarcel, has been shown in studies to damage female reproduction. Not only does this chemical additive greatly accelerate sexual maturation in women, but it also tends to reduce the weight and function of both the ovaries and the uterus. Similarly, L-histidine, when injected into muscle tissue, can cause the body to develop an autoimmune response to the natural substance, which can lead to many of the serious side effects being observed in many young girls who have been jabbed with Gardasil.

Be sure to read the following two reports by Heidi Stevenson to learn more about how Gardasil appears to damage female reproduction:
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com
http://gaia-health.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041512_Gardasil_ovary_destruction_HPV_vaccine.html#ixzz2bDudlA7a

Scientists discover exact mechanism for how broccoli and crucifers fight deadly cancers

(NaturalNews) Scientists have been mounting evidence to support the cancer-fighting abilities associated with consuming broccoli and other members of the crucifer family for more than a decade. Past studies have shown that this super-food family directly influences the expression of more than 400 genes immediately after eating the tasty vegetables. Further research bodies have also shown that broccoli consumption can play an important role in lowering the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, and yet to date, the precise metabolic pathway for disease prevention has largely been unknown.

A team of research scientists from Britain's Institute of Food Research have published the results of their work in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition to explain how metabolic modifications brought about by consumption of high-glucoraphanin broccoli may be behind the suggested health benefits and cancer-fighting ability of the cruciferous vegetable family. Scientists noted that this study provides the first evidence from human studies for a possible mechanism behind the suggested ability of glucosinolates, including glucoraphanin found in broccoli, to reduce the risks of chronic diseases and cancers.

Broccoli and crucifer compounds rejuvenate critical mitochondrial function to prevent chronic illnesses

Researchers fed a special cultivar of broccoli, a combination of wild and commercially available broccoli that contains high levels of glucoraphanin, to nineteen volunteers each week for three months. They compared the first group to two other groups eating the same diet, except one consumed commercially availablebroccoli and the third ate none of the crucifer. The team observed that those eating the glucoraphanin-rich vegetable showed signs of an improved metabolism.

The scientists determined that a compound commonly found in crucifers, known as sulforaphane, improved the chemical reactions inside mitochondria, the power source for our cellular machinery. The study found that glucoraphanin helped 'retune' metabolic processes in the cells that get disrupted as we age. Lead author, Dr. Richard Mithen commented, "We think this provides some evidence as to why people who eat diets rich in broccoli may keep in good health... mitochondria are really, really important, and when they start to go wrong it leads to many of the diseases of aging."

The nutritionists performing the study recommend eating broccoli two to three times a week. Other health-promoting members of the cruciferous vegetable family include Brussels sprouts, kale and cauliflower. Dr. Mithen concluded "We think it is significant because it shows in humans a measurable effect on our metabolism, which is central to our overall health and could explain the diverse range of beneficial effects many observational dietary studies have shown previously." It is important to note that while this study used a specially concentrated type of broccoli to produce the stated results, consumption of commercially available broccoli and crucifers have been shown to exhibit similar anti-cancer properties when eaten over a longer period of time.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041505_broccoli_cancer_prevention_crucifer_compounds.html#ixzz2bDtUY9iy

BREAKING: European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

(NaturalNews) A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to "grow, reproduce or trade" any vegetable seeds that have not been "tested, approved and accepted" by a new EU bureaucracy named the "EU Plant Variety Agency."

It's called the Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.

The draft text of the law, which has already been amended several times due to a huge backlash from gardeners, is viewable here.

"This law will immediately stop the professional development of vegetable varieties for home gardeners, organic growers, and small-scale market farmers," said Ben Gabel, vegetable breeder and director of The Real Seed Catalogue. "Home gardeners have really different needs - for example they grow by hand, not machine, and can't or don't want to use such powerful chemical sprays. There's no way to register the varieties suitable for home use as they don't meet the strict criteria of the Plant Variety Agency, which is only concerned about approving the sort of seed used by industrial farmers."

Virtually all plants, vegetable seeds and gardeners to eventually be registered by government

All governments are, of course, infatuated with the idea of registering everybody and everything. Under Title IV of the proposed EU law:

Title IV Registration of varieties in national and Union registers
The varieties, in order to be made available on the market throughout the Union, shall be included in a national register or in the Union register via direct application procedure to the CVPO.

Gardeners must also pay fees to the EU bureaucracy for the registration of their seeds. From the proposed law text:

The competent authorities and the CPVO should charge fees for the processing of
applications, the formal and technical examinations including audits, variety denomination, and the maintenance of the varieties for each year for the duration of
the registration.

While this law may initially only be targeted at commercial gardeners, it sets a precedent to sooner or later go after home gardeners and require them to abide by the same insane regulations.

Government bureaucracy gone insane

"This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control," says Ben Gabel. "All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while killing off the seed supply to home gardeners and interfering with the right of farmers to grow what they want. It also very worrying that they have given themselves the power to regulate and licence any plant species of any sort at all in the future - not just agricultural plants, but grasses, mosses, flowers, anything at all - without having to bring it back to the Council for a vote."

As a hint of the level of insane bureaucracy that gardeners and vegetable growers will be subject to under this EU law, check out this language from the proposed EU law:

Specific provisions are set out on the registration in the Union variety register and with regard to the possibility for the applicant to launch an appeal against a CPVO decision. Such provisions are not laid down for the registration in the national variety
registers, because they are subject to national administrative procedures. A new obligation for each national variety examination centre to be audited by the CPVO will be introduced with the aim to ensure the quality and harmonisation of the variety registration process in the Union. The examination centre of the professional operators will be audited and approved by the national competent authorities. In case of direct application to the CPVO it will audit and approve the examination centres it uses for variety examination.

Such language is, of course, Orwellian bureaucraticspeak that means only one thing: All gardeners should prepare to be subjected to total government insanity over seeds, vegetables and home gardens.

RealSeeds.co.uk warns about any attempt to actually try to understand the law by reading it:

You cannot just read the first 5 pages or so that are an 'executive summary', and think you know what this law is about. The executive summary is NOT what will become the law. It is the actual Articles themselves that become law, the Summary has no legal standing and is just tacked on as an aid to the public and legislators, it is supposed to give background information and set the proposed legislation in context so people know what is going on and why.

The problem with this law has always been that the Summary says lots of nice fluffy things about preserving biodiversity, simplifying legislation, making things easier etc - things we all would love - but the Articles of the law actually do completely the opposite. And the Summary is not what becomes the law.

For example, the Summary of drafts 1, 2 & 3 talked about making things easier for 'Amateur' varieties. But the entire class of Amateur vegetables - which we have spent 5 years working with DEFRA to register - was actually abolished entirely in the Articles right from the start. Yet the Summary , and press releases based on it, still talked about how it will help preserve Amateur varieties! The Summary is completely bogus. Do not base your views of the law on it!

So, be warned. By all means, read it yourself. But you have the ignore the Summary as that is not the Law, and does not reflect what is in the Law. 

As you might suspect, this move is the "final solution" of Monsanto, DuPont and other seed-domination corporations who have long admitted their goal is the complete domination of all seeds and crops grown on the planet. By criminalizing the private growing of vegetables -- thereby turning gardeners into criminals -- EU bureaucrats can finally hand over full control of the food supply to powerful corporations like Monsanto.

Most heirloom seeds to be criminalized

Nearly all varieties of heirloom vegetable seeds will be criminalized under this proposed EU law. This means the act of saving seeds from one generation to the next -- a cornerstone of sustainable living -- will become a criminal act.

In addition, as Gabel explains, this law "...effectively kills off development of home-garden seeds in the EU."

This is the ultimate wish of all governments, of course: To criminalize any act of self-reliance and make the population completely dependent on monopolistic corporations for their very survival. This is true both in the USA and the EU. This is what governments do: They seize control, one sector at a time, year after year, until you are living as nothing more than a total slave under a globalist dictatorial regime.

An online petition has already been started on this issue and has garnered nearly 25,000 signatures so far.

NOAH'S ARK and 240 other organizations from 40 European countries have also initiated an "open letter" appealing to Brussels bureaucrats to stop the insanity. Click here for a translated version of their petition.

I saw this coming

By the way, I am on the record predicting this exact scenario. Read Chapter Three of my fiction book, "Freedom Chronicles 2026." (Read it FREE, online.) It depicts a seed smuggler living in a time when seeds are criminalized and people earn a living as professional seed smugglers.

In my book, a woman uses a specially-crafted breast prosthesis to smuggle seeds to "underground gardeners" in full defiance of laws crafted by Monsanto. A vast underground network of grassroots gardeners and scientists manage to put together a "seed weapon" to destroy GMOs and take back the food supply from evil corporations.

Mark my words: Seeds are about to become contraband. Anyone who grows their own food is about to be targeted as a criminal. The governments of the world, conspiring with corporations like Monsanto, do not want any individual to be able to grow their own food.

This is about total domination of the food supply and the criminalizing of gardeners. And this is what big government always does after centralizing sufficient power. All governments inherently seek total control over the lives of everyone, and if you don't set boundaries and limits for government (i.e. the Bill of Rights), it eventually runs roughshod over all freedoms and liberties, including the freedom to grow your own food.

Additional sources:
http://open-seeds.org/bad-seed-law/
http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_European_Commission_registration.html#ixzz2bB93aeHg

Monsanto now overriding natural law by attempting to patent multiple common vegetables, fruits

(NaturalNews) Global biotechnology megalith Monsanto is no longer content with simply manipulating and patenting its own genetically-modified (GM) counterfeits of nature. According to a new petition created by the human rights advocacy group Avaaz, Monsanto is right now attempting to exploit little-known loopholes in European law for the ultimate purpose of patenting common fruits and vegetables that exist naturally in nature - and the president of the European Patent Office (PAO) has apparently given his blessing to this malicious endeavor.

Just when we all thought that corporate agriculture could not get any more predatory and deranged in its pursuit of power over the food supply, fresh news emerges about Monsanto's attempts to play the role of God by claiming ownership of natural fruits and vegetables. According to Avaaz, Monsanto is using PAO's application process to file for patents on things like natural cucumbers and tomatoes, and unless a cohort of proactive European nations takes action now to stop this effort, the multinational corporation could soon assume control over the conventional food supply.

"Companies like Monsanto have found loopholes in European law to have exclusive rights over conventional seeds, so we just need to close them shut before they set a dangerous global precedent," explains the petition. "And to do that, we need key countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands - where opposition is already growing - to call for a vote to stop Monsanto's greedy plans."

You can read and sign the Azaaz petition here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_nm/?bigwYcb&v=26065

The petition, which has already been signed by more than 2.1 million people as of this writing, is simple: It calls on the leaders of these three important countries, and the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization, to amend European patent law to block these egregious loopholes. With enough signatures and a groundswell of grassroots opposition, the hope is that these countries will take swift action to protect the God-given right of people everywhere to access nature freely without having to get permission from a corporation with an extensive track record of deception and fraud.

"Since the year 2000, there have been more and more patents granted on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding" in the EU, explains a recent report put forth by the group No Patents on Seeds entitled President of the European Patent Office gives green light for patents on plants and animals: Patent office ignores the position of the European Parliament. "Presently, there are around 100 such patents on plants, and around 1,000 applications have been filed."

You can read the full No Patents on Seeds report here:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Your help needed to stop the approval of Monsanto patents on dozens more plants

This is heinous news, but it gets worse. According to the same report, Monsanto, Syngenta, and various other biotechnology companies are in the process of filing for many more patents in 2013, and have no intention of stopping until they own every plant in existence. No Patents on Seeds says dozens of new patents covering species like broccoli, onions, melons, lettuce and cucumber are set to be approved in the coming weeks and months.

But you can help stop these evil corporations from achieving global domination of the food supply by signing the Azaaz petition and raising awareness about Monsanto's covert control agenda:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_nm/?bigwYcb&v=26065

No Patents on Seeds has also come up with a short list of political instruments that it hopes can be used to reign in the EPO and stop this madness. These instruments include having EU member states order a diplomatic conference on the European Patent Convention (EPC) to exclude natural plants and animals from being patented.

Be sure to check out the entire No Patents on Seeds report here: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041485_Monsanto_patents_GMOs.html#ixzz2bB8bENIL

14-year-old teen GMO activist schools ignorant TV host on human rights, food labeling

(NaturalNews) Her name is Rachel Parent, and she's suddenly an internet sensation for her cool-headed debate about GMOs on a popular Canadian TV show. (She's also the founder of the Kids Right to Know GMO Walk.) As you'll see in the video below, Rachel calmly argues for the basic human right to know what's in our food, even as the condescending bully of a host named Kevin O'Leary verbally assaults the girl and practically accuses her of murdering children.

During the debate, Kevin O'Leary, co-host of the The Lang And O'Leary Exchange show, viciously attacked Rachel, first accusing her of being a "lobbyist" against GMOs (an absurd accusation that O'Leary knows is false, as there is no corporate interest in honest food labeling), and then equating her position of questioning GMOs with somehow supporting a holocaust of widespread death of children. Despite the outrageous attacks, Rachel Parent simply countered his utterly contrived accusations with the facts: GMO crops don't out-produce regular crops, GMOs are a dangerous global experiment using human beings as lab rats, and consumers should have the right to know what they're buying or eating.

(It is astonishing that people like O'Leary want consumers to have less information about what they're buying, keeping them in the dark and subjecting them to the accidental ingestion of modified foods that have been linked to organ damage and cancer tumors.)

See Rachel Parent's Facebook page at:
http://www.facebook.com/gmonews

And watch her video debate with Kevin O'Leary at TV.naturalnews.com:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=207576091B7B916EAF7F8B971D186DF2

Here it is on YouTube:

Tips for Rachel - how to respond to GMO death cultists

Rachel is astonishingly good at the art of debate, even at just 14 years of age. (See her picture on the right, too, and notice she's got a face made for television.)

In addition to celebrating Rachel's amazing debate, I also wanted to offer her some advice in confronting these manipulative, anti-human "death cult" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary, who actually suggested, when asked about GMO labeling advocates, "I have an answer for these people. Stop eating. Then we can get rid of them." (Yes, he would love to usher in another holocaust as long as Monsanto got to run the concentration camps...)

First, you've got to fire back and remind people like O'Leary that GMOs are not without their own risks. O'Leary's claim that Rachel endorses the death of children because she doesn't support genetically modified rice engineered with extra vitamin A completely glosses over the inherent risks of toying with the genetic code of self-replicating crops. There are at least three risks that can be used in any debate to silence anyone trying to shove GMOs down your throat:

Risk #1) Human health side effects. What is the effect of GM crops on humans who eat them? Will they cause organ damage? Infertility? Unforeseen side effects? Wouldn't it have been wise to answer these questions before rolling out GM crops across the world?

Risk #2) Genetic pollution. Will the artificially engineered genes spread through the crops grown in the wild, altering them in unforeseen ways and possibly creating new genetic vulnerabilities that could lead to sudden crop failures? By invoking this argument, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire human race at risk of starvation" from an unforeseen crop failure caused by GMO pollution. And if challenged on that, she could have pointed to all the other times "scientists" have failed to foresee the devastating implications of technologies that were widely believed to be safe when they were first rolled out: thalidomide, DDT, nuclear power plants, the agricultural policies that caused the Dust Bowl, etc.

Risk #3) Ecosystem devastation. How will GMO crops interact with insect pests and pollinators? Rachel could have rightly invoked the global collapse of honeybee pollinators and pointed to GMOs as one of the factors believed to be partially responsible. Will GMOs also alter insects and make them more resistant to natural plant defense mechanisms in non-GMO crops? If so, that could prove devastating to non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests or plains. We've already seen how the use of Roundup -- the herbicide commonly used on GM crops -- has resulted in the rise of "superweed" that require enormous quantities of herbicide chemicals to eradicate. That's alarming proof that GMOs actually lead to the use of more chemicals, not less.

With arguments like these, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire planet at risk of a man-made ecological disaster worse than the Great Dust Bowl." She could have then asked O'Leary whether he "supported global starvation for humanity."

Rachel Parent is the kind of truth-telling activist who will ultimately defeat Monsanto

These are just ideas of support for Rachel's next debate. In my view, she was absolutely fantastic and really made waves on Canadian television by putting O'Leary in his place.

Natural News salutes Rachel Parent, and we know that her debate skills will only continue to gain strength as she acquires more experience doing battle with "cult of death" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary -- the kind of people who don't mind risking the entire future of life on Earth as long as profiteering companies like Monsanto can make a few extra bucks next quarter.

In my opinion, they should fire O'Leary for being such a homicidal racist -- i.e. openly supporting risking the death of the entire race of humans -- and replace him with Rachel Parent who obviously makes a lot more sense and has a far better ability to connect with the viewing audience.

Check out Rachel leading the "Kids Right to Know" march:



See Rachel's video criticizing Kevin O'Leary's absurd, anti-humanist attacks on children and their food:



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041481_Rachel_Parent_GMO_labeling_activist.html#ixzz2bB4CpE1i

Wisdom by Gandhi

Realizing our wildest dreams

"We come this way but once. We can either tiptoe through life and hope we get to death without being badly bruised or we can live a full, complete life achieving our goals and realizing our wildest dreams." - Bob Proctor

Approve yourself and see what happens