GMO Compendium: Educate Yourself on Bio-tech and Genetic Engineering of Food

Considering the size and lack of ethics and morals of the opposition to labeling genetically modified grocery items, I had to carefully deliberate whether I should risk making all of the information I have available to the public. Am I risking a possible backlash from an unbeknownst Monsanto Lackey like one of my own clients?

Monsanto Owned Companies

As you might know, I have been very much against the idea of patenting life including their proprietary genetic switches from the beginning. Please see Genetically Modified Seeds ~ GMO Corporate Produce.

The “Average” U.S. Consumer

Taking away the right from farmers to plant save seeds is immoral and unsustainable without even taking into consideration the shear volume of herbicides and pesticides used on GMO crops with their massive health consequences upon consumers, without taking into consideration the cost of those health consequences upon consumers, and without consideration of the costs passed from farmers to consumers who buy GM food products.
In my personal opinion, patenting life for profit is based in greed – which is evil. Unfortunately, this practice does not weigh heavily upon the minds of the average U.S. Consumer. The average consumer knows what he/she likes. The average consumer DOES look at labels, but insofar as “symbols” of the brands they prefer, so they can grab it quickly from the shelf.
As you might know, the average U.S. Consumer isn’t very interested in details. They don’t want to be bothered by the next person on what to buy. They don’t want to be bothered by the next person on what’s healthy and what isn’t. By the same token, the average U.S. Consumer isn’t very interested in following the rules of the road; they just want to get from point A to point B, ASAP.
The average U.S. Consumer isn’t very interested in their own kids; they’ve handed over the health and well-being of their kids to the state wherein they get vaccinated in perpetuity from an early age. They allow their young kids to put cellphones to their heads all day. They allow school “counselors” to prescribe anti-depressant or anti-psychotic drugs to their kids. They allow their kids to consume junk food of every kind.

Blissful Ignorance

Why should a person who has renegged on his responsibility for the health and well-being of his own kid care about himself? I’m glad you asked.
The average U.S. Consumer is uneducated about a lot of things that should be important to him in almost a cult-like, blissful ignorance. The Monsanto Lackeys are counting upon the blissful ignorance of the average U.S. Consumer.
For this reason, the two main points of Monsanto Lackeys in their multi-million dollar “No on 37” campaign in California are:

  • The labeling is too confusing,
  • Prices would increase for consumers

If there’s anything that the average U.S. Consumer doesn’t want is to be confused. Like I said, they want to get from “point A to point B, ASAP” and confusing labeling would only hinder their lives. Right?

Not really – if you’re here with me right now, then you’re one of the consumers who don’t fit in that “average U.S. Consumer” profile. You’re here because you want to learn something about GMOs. You want to be educated, so you know you’re making the right decisions, whereas, the “average U.S. Consumer” couldn’t care less. The problem is that you and I are not “trending” at the moment.

Monsanto’s Target Market

You see, in my tenure with a market research company, I saw plenty of data that was discarded because it wasn’t “trending.” According to Monsanto Lackey market researchers, people who stop and read labels are not “trending.” According to Monsanto Lackey market researchers, people who care about protecting the health and well being of themselves and that of their loved ones are not “trending;” they are just anamolies, therefore, that “data” is discarded.

The “No on 37” propaganda is aimed at consumers who are “trending.” Their target market is consumers who want to get “from point A to point B, ASAP” without getting confused – and we all know how uneducated people are easily confused. Therefore, the Monsanto Lackeys are counting on the blissful ignorance of the average consumer who prefers to avoid “confusion.” (BTW: big biotech, big pharma, big food have no respect for the intelligence of U.S. Consumers since they are among the main industries responsible for lowering consumer I.Q.)

The other “No on 37” point is aimed at our wallets. The only substance in saying that costs will increase for consumers is that costs are already increasing for consumers even if proposition 37 doesn’t pass. We already know that all the costs that farmers must bear get passed down to consumers.

None of those costs will increase for organic producers – unless their crops have been polluted by GMOs; in this case, big biotech would have to be sued for causing the pollution. (According to Monsanto Lackeys, lawsuits are “frivolous” unless they are the ones doing the suing.) Granted, the costs for enforcing California State labeling regulations will go up about a million dollars if prop. 37 does pass, but there are other weights and measures to consider.

Awareness of GMOs Goes Up – The Cost of Health Care Goes Down

The cost of Medicare and Medicaid will go down as a result of raising awareness in the average consumer of GMOs. The principle of this issue is really quite simple: Consumer awareness of GMO foods has the potential of saving billions of dollars in healthcare, the same billions that are being spent right now on countering the side effects of consumers regular consumption of GM foods.

Therefore, the economic scales are in favor of consumers and the state. Prop. 37 is also an economic necessity that would help “tip the scales” from red to black in California.

The present trend in the average U.S. Consumer is the lack of awareness of GMO grocery products. When proposition 37 passes, that trend changes. The face of the entire consumer market changes; big bio-tech and their lackeys do not want that.

The other side of the issue is even simpler: If GMO food products are safe, then why is big bio-tech fighting the labeling of their products tooth and nail?

Science is Not On Trial

Science is not on trial here. The greedy execs with big-biotech who sue innocent farmers on a regular basis for “stealing” their technology are questionable. The greedy execs who wield the science of genetic engineering to patent life are questionable. The greedy execs who pollute the food chain with millions upon millions of tons of herbicides and pesticides and their questionable “proprietary formulas” are questionable. The greedy execs who place their people in important federal positions are questionable.

Here is a note from the iconic, David Icke on the corruption that GMO products and genetic engineering represents:



The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday

The US Food and Drug Administration said: ‘We know of no information showing that the foods created from these new methods differ in any meaningful or uniform way.’ It was a big lie, a statement of sheer insanity, and people like FDA/Monsanto double agent, Michael Taylor, knew it.

A lawsuit later brought to light 44,000 internal FDA documents which revealed that GMO can produce allergies, toxins, new diseases, antibiotic-resistant diseases, nutritional problems and cancer-causing agents. They also confirmed that scientists and experts at the FDA had said that GMO food was different from that produced normally and therefore had different risks. The effect on human health in GMO-soaked America has since proved catastrophic and potentially genocidal.

How come, then, that the FDA said publicly that there was no difference between non-GMO food and that produced with GMO, especially by Monsanto, which has led to the FDA not requiring independent safety checks on GMO products? One of the key people responsible for taking that line was Michael Taylor, the number two at the FDA, a former attorney to Monsanto and later a Monsanto Vice-President for Public Policy.

Taylor was also at the US Department of Agriculture between 1994 and 1996 and in his government roles he was highly influential in the decision not to insist that GMO had to be labelled which has denied the public the free choice to eat or not eat GMO food.

All this must have cost the lives of multiple millions of people and animals since then and caused suffering to untold numbers who have had their health devastated by GMO. It was also Taylor at the FDA who ensured that Monsanto’s genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) could be injected into cows to increase milk production without any labelling for people to make a choice.

He also wrote a paper saying that if producers of milk without the growth hormone labelled their milk as such they should be mandated to include a disclaimer from the FDA saying that there was no difference between milk with bovine growth hormone and milk without it.

Taylor has been described as possibly being responsible for ‘more food-related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history’.

This man should be in jail with the key thrown mid-Atlantic, but where is he now? He was appointed by Obama to be his ‘food safety czar’ in charge of all United States food safety policy at the FDA and is now Senior ‘Advisor’ [yeah, right] to the Commissioner of the FDA. Taylor’s policy is Monsanto’s policy and there can be no greater confirmation that corporations control governments than Taylor’s career with Monsanto and government agencies which are supposed to protect us from Monsanto.

This is why Big Biotech is getting virtually all that it wants from the FDA while organic farmers and growers and small farms in general are being destroyed by a mass of new and ludicrous laws on the grounds of ‘food safety’ imposed by FDA SWAT teams made up of monumental goons with guns in their hands and air in their heads.

Food fascism isn’t coming – it’s here.

Obama’s ‘food safety czar’: Taylor-made for Monsanto.

The following is my personal library of GMO related articles; they are a chronological compendium of articles from well known sources since late 2010 which cite GMO and toxicology studies that are not in the mainstream. Some of them are pro-GMO to help you reach a fair and balanced decision (as FOX News Actors would say). Everything that has been discussed in this post and beyond can be found within these 50 articles and graphics.

I have studied all of them and came to the conclusion that I would prefer to be living on another planet in a spiritually oriented culture where all food products are organic and society is sustainable. Since we’re stuck on this planet for the moment – let’s make the best of it:

If you don’t have to time to study all of the above materials, then draw upon the Wisdom of God and go with your gut instincts:

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. [Leviticus 19:19]

Thanks for your time. Healing Thoughts,

Related Organizations:

Certified Oriental Sports Trainer; Bachelors in Functional Therapy; Student of neuroscience, bioenergetics, psychoenergetics, psychotronics; Producer of NLP / radionic videos; Researcher with web analysis in esoteric science.

Posted in Organisations, Poison Spectrum, Public Health Hazard