Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WHO is now 7,000 employees strong, with six regional offices and 150 country offices around the world, and over 194 member states adhering to the regulations released by the organisation as per the United Nations system.
Whether it’s the effects of smoking, the swine flu pandemic or a nuclear disaster, the WHO is the body we rely on to advise on and resolve a public health crisis. But can it be trusted? How does the WHO decide on its recommendations? And how reliable are they?
Trust in the WHO’s ability to objectively address global health matters is not as strong as it may have been at its inception. And concerns regarding the organisation’s finances and the influences of independent contributors have been circulating since the 1950s when, after years of inaction, the WHO’s relationship with key players in the tobacco industry came to light.
“The tobacco industry founded institutes and bought scientists who would represent their position and they made sure their own names didn’t appear anywhere,” says former secretary of health of Switzerland, Thomas Zeltner. “So the organisations were called things that wouldn’t make you suspect they were really representing the tobacco industry.”
Scientists and other important figures within these institutes would often have links to both tobacco giants and the WHO, simultaneously. One example was a toxicologist who served as a consultant for the WHO in the prime of the tobacco movement, while on the payroll of an institute funded by multinational tobacco and cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris.
After the toxicologist’s polyamorous relationship was revealed, however, he still remained a consultant to the WHO.
There have since been numerous instances where seemingly unnatural relationships have arisen within institutes with a vested interest in the WHO; most of which appeared to occur at the height of alleged global health threats.
One such connection was between pharmaceutical companies such as Glaxo and Novartis, the countries that had signed agreements to purchase swine flu vaccines produced by the aforementioned companies, and the WHO.
The trigger-point for the agreements was a pandemic alert issued by the WHO in 2009.
In the first quarter after the alert, France‘s largest drugmaker reported a whopping $1.95bn (1.71bn euro) profit annual increase. The flu, however, did not live up to its deadly reputation. In Germany, 258 people died in the flu’s first year of the outbreak – a figure far fewer than deaths caused by a ‘normal’ flu outbreak.
While the WHO blamed its extravagant $18bn swine flu budget on being overly cautious, others were, and remain, sceptical.
“At the time of the swine flu outbreak, I was WHO general-secretary in the Department of Public Health, Intellectual Property and Medication. Nobody there was afraid,” says German Velasquez, who currently works with the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
“I didn’t know anyone at the WHO who had himself vaccinated, including the director-general, who told journalists in response to their questions that she hadn’t had time but would get herself vaccinated later.”
Wolfgang Wodarg, former delegate to the European Council, enforces the scenario of uncertainty and veiled truths, saying WHO personnel often turn a blind eye to the realities of certain situations in exchange for funding.
“The WHO officials have no idea about such things. They have to depend on scientists. And the scientists are allocated to them by the countries and by the organisations that finance the WHO. And many of them gave advice and made decisions that benefited the pharmaceutical industry,” says Wodarg.
Over the years, similar trends in relationships between the WHO, the UN and specific businesses and organisations have emerged; some in the most unlikely and critical situations, including the Chernobyl disaster.
As the WHO allegedly played down the number of deaths as caused directly by and due to the aftereffects of the nuclear explosion, it had become clear that organisation was working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As a matter of fact, the IAEA was initially founded as the ‘Atoms for Peace’ agency under the UN umbrella.
And while the two organisations have, ultimately, two very different endeavours – once concerning global health and the other, the ‘safe’ use of atomic energy – not only Chernobyl, but also Fukushima were undersold in their levels of devastation.
TrustWHO shines a light on how industry lobbies have infiltrated the WHO and asks whether the organisation can be trusted to keep the public healthy.
Two leading pediatricians in India have published a critique of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) newly revised manual on the classification of Adverse Events Following Immunization
The doctors claim that the new guidelines are too lax, resulting in more children dying from adverse reactions to vaccines, with no accountability for the vaccine manufacturers to produce safer vaccines.
In the U.S., pharmaceutical companies manufacturing vaccines cannot be sued due to faulty vaccines, which allows them to put as many vaccines into the market as they want, with no repercussions if the vaccine proves to be faulty or have a high injury and death rate. Victims must sue the U.S. government and top DOJ attorneys who protect the drug companies. (See quarterly reports from the DOJ on vaccine injuries and deaths here.)
This move by the WHO may very well be an attempt to protect drug companies manufacturing vaccines by preventing lawsuits in the rest of the world for faulty vaccines.
New Guidelines from WHO Put Children’s Life At Risk: Paediatricians
Two leading paediatricians in India have urged the World Health Organization (WHO) to urgently revise its manual on classification of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), warning that the new guidelines put children’s life at risk.
This needs to be done “urgently in the interest of child safety,” Doctors Jacob Puliyel at St Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi, and Pathik Naik of Children Hospital in Surat, say in a report published in the prestigious journal ‘F1000Research‘
Under WHO’s revised manual on AEFI, only those adverse reactions observed during clinical trials of a vaccine, should be classified as vaccine related. All new serious adverse reactions, including deaths seen during post-marketing of the vaccine should be considered as ‘coincidental’ or ‘unclassifiable’, and the vaccine should not be blamed.
The WHO has also changed the definition of “causal association,” the doctors say. Under the revised guidelines, if there is an alternate explanation for the adverse event, or another factor is involved, causative association with vaccine should not be made.
“In other words, if after vaccination, a child with an underlying congenital heart disease develops cardiac failure, it would not be considered causally related to the vaccine.”
The revised classification by WHO “is a major step backward for patient safety,” the authors say, adding, “This could embolden vaccine manufacturers to be more reckless with regard to adverse reactions.”
Puliyel and Naik note that the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has documented many deaths in children with pre-existing heart disease after they were administered the pentavalent vaccine (combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, and hepatitis-B vaccine).
Check out our Glyphosate pages for further info & research links on this poison that we’ve been told for decades is harmless as dish liquid. Kiwis love it and spray it everywhere … while refusing to examine the independent research … all with official approval. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The GM foods giant Monsanto is calling for an investigation into an agency of the World Health Organisation. That’s after the body published a report claiming some of the company’s products, like the weed-killer glyphosate, are linked to cancer. Monsanto says the WHO ignored two major studies that found no connection to the disease. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c… Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Note glyphosate’s in more than just Roundup, NZ’s favourite spray for just about everything, edges, roadsides, footpaths, schools, even their veggie gardens before replant! Nary a thought to WHO’s decision it’s ‘probably carcinogenic’. Check the fine print at your garden store and preferably don’t use it. See our Glyphosate pages at the main menu. EnvirowatchRangitikei
(Natural News) The Flemish government has joined the number of countries banning glyphosate, as reported by the Baum Hedlund. The prohibition on the use of glyphosate is not new in the country as the Belgian cities of Brussels and Wallonia have already issued their own laws regarding the individual use of the chemical. In addition to Belgium, four more countries have banned glyphosate for this year. These are:
Sri Lanka – The President of Sri Lanka also banned the use of glyphosate nationwide to protect the health of the its citizens. The herbicide has been linked to a quintuple increase in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the nation and resulted in about 20,000 deaths in northern Sri Lanka.
The Netherlands – The Netherlands likewise prohibited the herbicide after hearing the arguments of Party for Animals, an organization that focuses on animal rights issues.
Argentina – Meanwhile in Argentina, about 30,000 doctors demanded the prohibition of glyphosate in their country since the chemical is associated with cancer, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, skin diseases, respiratory illness, and neurological disease.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate as a potential carcinogen to humans. They found a strong association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is a type of blood cancer that affects the white blood cells called lymphocytes. Lawsuits against Roundup — Monsanto’s flagship product — began piling in after the IARC report. Over 1,100 people all over the U.S.have filed lawsuits against Monsanto. Allegedly, exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There are more than 50 lawsuits against Monsanto that continue to pile up in the U.S. District Court in San, Francisco.
Moreover, the glyphosate manufacturer is also facing a class action lawsuit in Wisconsin after six consumers claimed that Roundup was falsely promoted as safe when it actually caused adverse impacts on human gut bacteria.
“The following piece was contributed by a New Zealander who interviewed a New Zealand health care worker who was prepared to share their observations of the effects of vaccination on staff and vulnerable patients.”
Health Care Provider Whistleblower: Vaccines Leading to Sickness, Days off Work and Death
“A little experience often upsets a lot of theory.” – S. Parkes Cadman
A New Zealand health care worker has witnessed vaccines causing harm and shares some observations in an interview conducted in mid-May, 2017. As ‘Corey’ (not real name) wishes to remain in employment, some details, including dates, locations and Corey’s gender, were omitted.
Corey worked at a rest home where residents were provided with hospital level care. The death rate was typically about five over the course of a year, but following the administration of flu shots, there was an unprecedented number within a four-week week period. Seven died within a month according to this concerned whistleblower.
Corey said the flu vaccines, which research has indicated are not only ineffective in the elderly, but immune suppressive, [1] were administered on the recommendation of a General Practitioner, (GP), who was working to Ministry of Health and World Health Organization immunization targets.
Offers Corey: “The residents were aged between 78 and 90-years-of age and some of those who died had been in good health. Within about 10 days of receiving the vaccine, the first deaths started to happen. We lost three patients within in a few days of each other and then two more a few days after that. That’s five deaths within a little more than a week!”
“They had developed a cough in the first week, they went off food and their temperatures were raised. They had bacterial pneumonia and we had to give them antibiotics, but they still went on to die. It was not a natural death and the rest home could have been in serious trouble if residents’ family members found out that the vaccines had been given, as the GP responsible had not sought consent on behalf of those who were mentally unable to say ‘no’. It’s not written anywhere that a doctor has the right to make the decision to vaccinate.”
Vatican Radio last week charged that United Nations organizations promoting population control are using vaccines to surreptitiously sterilize women in Third World countries. Kenya’s Ministry of Health, along with the UN organizations — World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF — deny the charges, which carry the full weight of the Vatican. Vatican Radio is the official “voice of the Pope and the Church in dialogue with the World.”
“Catholic Bishops in Kenya have been opposed to the nationwide Tetanus Vaccination Campaign targeting 2.3 million Kenyan women and girls of reproductive age between 15-49 years, terming the campaign a secret government plan to sterilize women and control population growth,” reported Vatican Radio, as it took the occasion of the ordination of a Kenyan Bishop, Joseph Obanyi Sagwe, as an opportunity to remind the world of its concern.
The church, which operates 30% of Kenya’s health care facilities and has been providing health care in Kenya for more than 100 years, is not opposed to vaccinations. To the contrary, its health facilities have long been administering vaccines as part of its public health mission.
See the UN Agenda 21/2030 program. And yes they’re operating here in NZ through our Councils as well in case you think we’re exempt. We’re told depopulation is good as there are too many people on the planet. The big lie. There is ample room and resources for all on the planet, it is just that a wealthy few want it all for themselves. (Read Susan George’s exposé ‘How the Other Half Dies’ on that, it’s available as a free pdf online). Study Agenda 21/2030 and see what the UN agenda is. They plan to inventory and control every piece of land and every resource on the planet (see Rosa Koire’s info on that). As to vaccines, Bill Gates is on record as advocating vaccines for population control (and we all thought they were to save lives). Watch when there’s a disaster in a poor country and the help will arrive in the form of the military and a stock of measles vaccines or similar. (You will have noted this if you watch/read alternative media, not mainstream).
Don’t mess with Monsanto Co. That is the message being delivered right now by the agrichemical industry as it makes a full fledged assault on the team of international cancer scientists who dared to declare cancerous connections to the widely used herbicide called glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
Industry swagger is on full display in Washington where Monsanto and its friends at CropLife America are driving efforts to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after IARC scientists declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in March 2015. The industry is also demanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides, which spell billions of dollars in sales annually to Monsanto and the agrichemical brethren.
The EPA has been evaluating glyphosate as part of a re-registration review process for more than five years, and was initially expected to complete that review last year.The EPA then said it would complete the review by the end of 2016, and now says it will be 2017 before it offers a final report.
Remember those rats in the header image were fed for two years on very diluted Roundup plus GE corn which is laced with Roundup being sprayed on it during its growing time. Yes this supposedly harmless herbicide is IN your GE food which of course isn’t labeled because they consider you don’t need to know, it being so safe. You can watch the video on the rat experiment on our Glyphosate pages. You could sign our petition on glyphosate use in the Rangitikei, praps also like our FB pages & spread the word. Thank you. EnvirowatchRangitikei
What is especially infuriating about this is Monsanto’s original claim their product would “solve the world’s food problem”. Food problem? Read Susan George’s exposé of the real root cause of the world’s food problem. It’s not because of laziness and overpopulation as the powers that be would have you believe. You can download that book (written in the ’70s) for free (search pdf). Agribiz corporations created the food problem, now corporations claim they can fix it … well of course they can! … and for a whole lot more profit – to themselves. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.
Sprayed in a section adjacent to a primary school in NZ, farmers are told Roundup is harmless
Reuters news service has discovered that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency advised a review panel not to disclose documents on the weed killer glyphosate requested under U.S. freedom of information (FOIA) laws, according to America Online News. The report said the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) claims they are exempt from FOIA laws because they alone own the information.
Critics of the IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification of glyphosate — including Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge — say they want to review the agency’s work. Glyphosate is the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time, with 1.8 million tons of it applied to U.S. fields since 1974; two-thirds of that in the last 10 years.
When this toxic poison was first released in connection with “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops (soy, corn and cotton), Monsanto promised it would reduce the use of pesticides worldwide and solve the world’s food problem. Instead, it’s been a dismal failure, with “super weeds” resistant to glyphosate posing a massive worldwide problem.
The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.
In 2009 a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying about its safety, and since then other research has shown more evidence of glyphosate’s dangers.
Find further articles on glyphosate under ‘categories’ top left of any page and visit our glyphosate pages. Please share the info and help expose corporate corruption and lies.
I’m reblogging this article from 2014 to remind us all of the evidence. WHO some twelve months or so ago decided that glyphosate was probably a carcinogen. That got everybody frantically spreading the word however the probably has now given them a convenient little out for later in my opinion anyway… going by what has since happened, that being the major flip flop they’ve done. So … to recap, they (IARC) look at the myriad of independent research and decide on the probably carcinogenic scenario (yes rats fed very diluted glyphosate and GE corn for two years grew enormous tumours all over their bodies) then a year or so later do an about turn. Even if their current conclusions are correct they don’t inspire much trust in their processes to have done a major flip flop like that within a year. And remember, first up after the Séralini experiment Monsanto went into debunk mode by discrediting the Professor’s choice of rat as not being the correct type as in that particular rat is supposedly prone to tumours anyway. All the links to that info are on our Glyphosate pages (the independent research etc) and a brief google search will tell you that you can relax and start spraying everything with Roundup again because yes it’s perfectly safe. After all it is in the GM food you are eating that you don’t know about because it’s so safe they don’t need to label it for you. Please do yourself a favour and watch carefully Professor Séralini’s evidence, and/or read the transcript below. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The Séralini Experiment
Transcript: Pay close attention to what you are about to see. These images will be seen around the world. These rats have been fed with transgenic corn during their entire life cycle. The tumours they suffer from are enormous. The study that revealed the effect of these GMOs on the health of these rats has just been completed. It benefited from exceptional financial & technical means. We were able to witness the study in its entirety. It lasted for two years. Following years of doubt and controversies will we finally know the truth about GMOs? Would we then be faced with a health crisis of global proportions?
Paris, December 16th, 2011, Criigen offices, Committee for Research & Independent Information for Genetic Engineering…. Presentation of the results collected by Professor Seralini during his study focused on determining the potential harmfulness of the GMO corn Nk603 for humans and animals….
This is the longest most thorough study to have been carried out on a GMO and we’ve also carried out a joint study on the most used pesticide in the world, the Roundup which is a herbicide. It belongs to the main pesticide category. We spent over a year trying to obtain transgenic corn because no GMO manufacturers were willing to provide them. This is because Monsanto requires contracts to be signed stipulating that the seeds must not be used for testing and an arrangement must be made prior to the testing. We wanted our study to be independent.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois
Doctor specialized in Environmental Health
President of the CRIIGEN
This is the first time that a two year study has been conducted on GMOs and there lies the big difference. Furthermore, we tried to evaluate a maximum of biochemical & biological parameters with repeated blood tests, weighing of the specimens and urine tests. We studied the hepatic & urinary parameters as well as the blood parameters, all the parameters that can be studied. We also studied the hormonal parameters which has never been done in previous studies. This experiment is a world premiere.
Up until now the corn NK603, the very one selected for the study had only been tested over a three month period and that in a test environment entirely controlled by Monsanto, its manufacturer. Furthermore, concerning the Roundup, also manufactured by Monsanto & which is used for growing corn, only its active agent, Glyphosate had been assessed. But one needs to understand that the manufacturers in order to enable the agent to penetrate the plant cell successfully, use additives that are sometimes more harmful than the actual Glyphosate.
Gilles-Eric Seralini
Molecular biologist
University of Caen (France)
We have two clear objectives, firstly to conduct the studies exactly according to international requirements, but making sure we are very thorough when it comes to analyzing the results. Secondly we want to determine if there are secondary effects. The only way to do this is to carry out tests on animals, and then to examine all the blood parameters whilst paying close attention to their organs.
Commentator: At this stage it might prove useful to know exactly what GMOs are used for. It is a plant that has been developed either to produce its own insecticide or to be tolerant to a herbicide, thusenabling it to be exposed to massive doses of it without dying. One can understand how GMOs can be useful to farmers, for example they would be able to spray their entire field with Roundup, killing all the weeds in the process & never harming the genetically modified plant. On the other hand it is hard to see the benefits for the consumer who will effectively be ingesting substances coming from a plant that has absorbed the pesticides. That is why it is crucial to test not only the GMO, but also the GMO with its residue & the pesticide on its own.
Professor Seralini: This type of testing had never been done before because the corporations doing the test would do them on GMOs with the Roundup which meant that we had no idea what between the GMO & the Roundup caused the pathologies. Or they did them on GMOs without specifying that this was the case. So what we decided to do was to address the question, are we dealing with the effects of the GMO or the pesticide. During the last ten years of testing the national commissions did not envisage a pesticide effect.
Commentator: Therefore Europe does not even demand chronic or toxicity tests to be systematically carried out on animals, & when they are required, it is the manufacturers who decide the protocol to be used. For example, the Amflora potato was only tested on a group
of thirty rats, ten of which were being fed the GMO. The Monsanto corn was tested on 400 rats. Eighty of them were fed the transgenic plant, but only forty of them were then subjected to blood tests. Either way, none of these studies lasted longer than 90 days.
Professor Seralini: What is represented by this figure is that certain groups of rats, male and female, have ingested GMO corn. GMO with Roundup residue and Roundup on its own. Every time we go up a level a rat dies. The limit is ten due to the number of rats that constitute a group. The dotted line represents the females in the group who die but have a completely normal diet. Only two animals die spontaneously after 550 days. On the other hand, every female that has been fed on the GMO, GMO with Roundup or Roundup diet has died more frequently than the other rats. Some will challenge
the relevance of such results but what is undeniable is in the group that has been exposed to the GMOs there is a 600% increase or six times more deaths compared to the control group. As far as medicine or biology is concerned there is no need for further testing. An important fact is that all the studies carried out on the rats are done over a three month period. It so happens that none of the effects are visible until the fourth month. This is fundamental in understanding that studies conducted over a three month period are useless. This conclusion is easily understandable. It could be said that their only use is to soothe their consciences.
Commentator: Every rat out of the 200 that were tested was dissected by Professor Seralini’s team. They did this to discover
exactly what had affected their organs. The purpose behind this was to identify the way each diet, GMO, GMO & Roundup & Roundup on its own had acted on the metabolism of each animal. Focusing on the development rate of the tumours, that, and this comes as no surprise, only start to manifest themselves after the initial three month period.
Professor Seralini: This figure represents a number of palpable tumours contracted by the animal during the experiment. Here we can see the rats subjected to GMOs compared to those with a regular diet. As you can see, very few males contracted tumours. This is due to them being more resistant to the testing process. What these figures show are the for the large tumours, each step up
represents a large tumour which can measure 17 millimeters by 17 millimeters. For a rat these measurements are colossal. It would equate to a tumour of this size if seen on a human being. It is enormous. After having studied these tumours it can be said that 94% of them take effect in the mammary glands which would equate to breast cancer in a woman. We are faced with renal tumours for the males but not only. Some males also suffer from mammary tumours. This points towards a hormonal effect that isn’t affected by the dosage. Sixty percent of breast cancer cases are caused by hormonal deficiencies.
Commentator: Professor Seralini’s study holds one last surprise for us, and this is a major one. Up until now, one could have thought that the main cause of death for the tested rats was coming from the
pesticide added to the corn. But what the study highlighted, and this for the first time ever, is the fact that the transgenesis itself could have killed the rats. What this means is that just by interfering with the genome of the plant in order to modify it, we are faced with repercussions that no one could have anticipated. This is enough to make us reconsider all the scientific precepts that have led to the creation of GMOs.
Professor Seralini: Roundup had never been tested separately. Whilst conducting cellular studies we saw that the cells of the liver, embryos, placenta, kidneys and the umbilical cord died much faster and so we could deduce that there was a toxic effect on the organism. What can be said is that there is an increase in deaths due to GMOs and Roundup. The biggest surprise came when we realized
that GMOs without any Roundup residue were responsible for an increase in the death rate of females and of some males. This could be the result of the GMO gene that has been badly assimilated by the plant and that has therefore resulted in a negative effect, or due to a secondary metabolical effect.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois: What that means is that we are dealing with a GMO in particular. The modification of a cereal or GMO corn, with regard to the genes inserted into the corn, to make it a GMO corn can make it result in different effects. It’s not because a certain GMO has a particular effect that other GMOs will have an effect, but some have even more of an impact. What is alarming is that this
is the GMO that is being eaten by the Americans but, also the GMO that has been proved for importation by European agencies including the French ones and that obviously contaminates our food.
Commentator: Nowadays, only two types of GMOs are being produced in a few European countries. One is corn and the other potato. But what about the 27 million tons of transgenic soya that are being unloaded each year in European ports. This soya is used to feed our cattle, but it also makes its way into a number of our foodstuffs.
Professor Seralini: What we want to achieve with this study is a moratorium. The situation is serious enough, and we’re not going to eat anything and everything. We imported without knowing what was being imported. And the United States have produced crops without knowing what they were producing. There needs to be more studies of this kind, and GMO manufacturers need to conduct them before commercializing their products.
Commentator: A moratorium on growing GMOs has been approved by most European countries. Now that we know the results of the study conducted by Professor Seralini, could it be time to extend this moratorium to all the GMO used in many of our foods. To establish an undeniable scientific truth, one needs teams, time and means. Some will say that it takes too much time and that this is too expensive. But had we taken this precaution, could we not have avoided recent sanitary scandals? Will GMOs be responsible yet again for a calamitous scenario? And while we are waiting for scientific certainties, evidently, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.
For further Info visit our Glyphosate pages … and don’t forget to share 🙂
Monsanto and Gates Foundation Pressure Kenya to Lift Ban on GMOs
(ecowatch.com) Kenya is on the verge of reversing its ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The East African country—which has banned the import and planting of GMOs since 2012 due to health concerns—may soon allow the cultivation of GMO maize and cotton after being pushed for approval by pro-GMO organizations including Monsanto, the agribusiness giant and world’s largest seed company.
(naturalsociety.com) Greenpeace said in a report released last Wednesday that farmers in northeast China are illegally growing genetically modified corn. [1]
Brazil Slaps Nestle, Pepsi, and Others for Hiding GMO Ingredients
(naturalsociety.com) Six major food manufacturers – including Nestle, PepsiCo, and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo – have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, which alleges the companies failed to include labels indicating the use of genetically modified ingredients.
