Are
you new to whole and
traditional foods or to
"Nourishing
Traditions"? Have
you just gone
gluten/dairy-free and
don’t know what to
eat?
The
menu mailer covers 6
dinners (including side
dishes) and one dessert
every week. It
contains a full menu,
shopping list, a
preparation plan, and
serving suggestions for
each meal. Tips and
information are included
in every mailer as well.
What
makes the Cooking
Traditional Foods menu
mailer unique? A
preparation schedule is
included with every menu
mailer. It reminds
you when to thaw the
meat, prep the crock-pot,
make the stock or soak
the grains. Because
lack of planning is a
major hurdle in getting
healthy meals on the
table, this schedule
helps you make sure
everything is done.
It also contains
blanks so you can write
in your own reminders for
breakfast, snacks and
lunches.
Biblical
Womanhood began in
2005 as a ministry to
encourage and equip women
and young women. Through
our bookstore, articles,
newsletter, and blog, we
desire to promote
femininity and build up
women as they embrace
their Biblical callings.
In this humanistic,
feministic culture, we
want to be a breath of
fresh air to women
seeking after something
greater than what the
world has to offer - to
glorify the Lord in all
they do, say, and think!
Since 1987
Mountain Rose Herbs has
consistently delivered
exceptional quality
certified organic
products with a strict
emphasis on sustainable
agriculture. From our
bulk organic herbs and
spices, to our essential
oils and herbal teas, the
quality and integrity of
what we offer is
unparalleled with smiles
guaranteed.
(NaturalNews) Over the past century, Monsanto has dabbled in many projects – Agent Orange, Terminator seeds, PCBs, and now “recombined” milk. Monsanto’s latest obsession is milk labels. Specifically, those that are labeled “rBST-free” or “rBGH-free”. They are not concerned with the BST and the BGH on your milk labels. What worries them is the “r” in the label, which stands for “recombined.” Recombined milk is not a natural state of milk and recent evidence suggests that it is probably not as good for us.
Consuming dairy products coming from cows treated with rBGH poses some health risks, including antibiotic resistance (because of antibiotic use to treat cows’ mastitis and other health problems), and a link to a certain range of cancers due to an elevated level of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1.
Monsanto is waging a war of words to attempt to stop the threat against its bottom line. Consumers are becoming skeptical about recombined food and so the company is attempting to suppress or ban the "rBGH-free" label at the state level.
They contend that rBST is a supplement used to help cows produce more milk. Because of the fact that the supplement is injected into the cow and not the milk, they insist that the resulting milk is exactly the same. They state that there is no difference in this milk.
While it is true that all cows have naturally occurring bovine growth hormone, only cows injected with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone have rBGH. To call this hormone a mere “supplement” is inaccurate as well. Cows that receive this hormone typically last only two lactation cycles before they are slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows normally produce milk for 4-7 years and can live as long as 10 years.
Canada, Australia, and parts of the European Union have banned Monsanto’s recombined milk due to its threats to both humans and cows. To date, the U.S. has yet again allowed Monsanto the freedom to unleash its possibly lethal products on the unsuspecting consumer. And so, it comes down to a battle between the FDA (and its supporters) and those who don’t follow the FDA. Proposed bans on rBGH-free labels are not to protect the consumer, they are to protect Monsanto’s pocketbook.
Public sentiment is turning against rBGH products. More medical authorities are voicing concerns about physical and psychological health issues. In addition, farmers and consumers are demanding a differentiation between recombined milk and milk in its natural form.
Just because there is no commercial test for this drug does not translate into there not being a difference between recombined milk and natural milk. Monsanto’s tactic has been to equate the absence of a verifying lab test with the label being misleading. This doesn’t hold true as there are many products with legitimate labels that haven’t been verified by lab tests – bottled water comes to mind.
Monsanto continues to muddy the waters by insisting that to label the different milks is misleading because “they make consumers believe there is a difference, when in fact there is none."
Monsanto nearly succeeded in a ban on rBGH-free labels in Pennsylvania in 2007; however the ban failed at the eleventh hour. Several other states are expected to revise or lift their bans on rBGH-free labels due to opposition.
At this juncture, Monsanto seems to have accepted the consumer’s rejection of genetically modified bovine growth hormones. At this point they are experimenting with some funding of grass-roots farming coalitions. The American Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) is one such recipient of Monsanto’s generosity. The farmers from organizations such as these have been known to harass their state legislators, force scientists who may be skeptical of advisory panels, and general intimidation.
As more consumers become aware of the issues involved and make their choices for rBGH-free products, it becomes more and more apparent that Monsanto’s goal is censorship to protect their own interests, not the public’s. One need only take a cursory look at Monsanto’s past pattern with products like Agent Orange, PCBs, and Terminator seeds. The bottom line is that more information is never a bad thing and anything or anyone who tries to restrict the flow of information is likely anti-consumer.
About the author
Jo Hartley
Wife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2
Jo is a 40 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything! http://www.loftymatters.com
Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/022920.html
(NaturalNews) The new Monsanto has clearly come to dominate the American food chain with its genetically modified (GM) seeds. It’s a master at enforcing its 674 biotechnology patents, using tyrannical and ruthless tactics against small farmers. This new Monsanto has also moved into the production of milk with it artificial growth hormones, seeking to dominate the dairy industry as effectively as it has the seed business. Has this new corporate image made us forget about the old Monsanto’s decades long history of scorched earth and toxic contamination?
An article in the May, 2008 edition of Vanity Fair chronicles the history of Monsanto from its beginnings to its efforts to shed itself of the image of toxic environmental and human threat.
A short history
Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny who had an idea to make money manufacturing saccharin, an artificial sweetener then imported from Germany. He called his company Monsanto Chemical Works. The German cartel then controlling the market for saccharin tried to force Queeny out of business, but his persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer, Coca-Cola, kept the company going. Vanillin, caffeine, sedative drugs, laxatives and aspirin had been added to the arsenal of products when supplies were cut off from Europe during World War I, forcing Monsanto to manufacture its own, and positioning it as a leading force in the American chemical industry.
In the 1920’s, Queeny’s son took over and built Monsanto into a global powerhouse, extending into the production of an astounding array of plastic, rubber and vinyl goods, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
In the 1970’s Monsanto moved into biotechnology. By 1982 it had become the first to genetically modify a plant cell, making it possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells to improve crop productivity. According to Vanity Fair writers Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Monsanto sought to portray GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry.
During the late 1990's, Monsanto spun off its chemical and fibers businesses into a new company called Solutia. It then reincorporated itself and emerged as an agricultural company.
Company literature refers to Monsanto as a “relatively new company” with the primary goal of helping “farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe and fuel” the planet. The listed corporate milestones are from the recent era. There is no mention of the old Monsanto’s potential responsibility for more than 50 Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites. And it does not mention that the reason for the formation of Solutia was to channel the bulk of the mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun off company, keeping the new Monsanto name tarnish-free.
But keeping the new corporate image polished may be a tough task. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic substances ever known –- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin. Several court proceedings regarding these substances remain unresolved.
Toxic storm
In the town of Nitro, West Virginia, Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995, making an herbicide that had dioxin as a by-product. The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart and liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even in small amounts. In 2001, the U.S. government listed dioxin as a “known human carcinogen”.
In 1949, at the Nitro plant, a pressure valve blew on a container of this herbicide, producing a plume of vapor and white smoke that drifted out over the town. Residue coated the interior of buildings and those inside them with a fine black powder. Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions, and many were diagnosed with chloracne, a long lasting and disfiguring condition. Others felt intense pains in their chest, legs and trunk. A medical report from the time said the explosion “caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.” Doctors detected a strong odor coming from the patients they described as men “excreting a foreign chemical through their skins”.
Monsanto downplayed the incident, saying that the contaminant was “fairly slow acting” and only an irritant to the skin.
Meanwhile, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, In the 1960’s it manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which became the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending they had been harmed by exposure to the chemical. Agent Orange also created dioxin as a by-product.
At the Nitro plant, dioxin waste went into landfills, storm drains, streams, sewers, into bags with the herbicide, and then the waste was burned out into the air. Dioxin from the plant can still be found in nearby streams, rivers, and fish. Residents have sued Monsanto and Solutia for damages, but Monsanto claims “the allegations are without merit” and promises to vigorously defend itself. The suit may drag on for years. Monsanto has the resources to wait; plaintiffs usually don’t.
Poisoned earth
From 1929 to 1971, the Anniston, Alabama plant produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. PCBs became central to American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. PCBs are highly toxic members of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, and have been linked to damage in the liver and nervous system, as well as immune, endocrine and reproductive disorders. The Environmental Protective Agency (EPA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of Health and Human Services, classify PCBs as “probably carcinogens”.
Today, after tons of contaminated soil have been removed in an effort to reclaim the Anniston site, the area around the old Monsanto plant continues to be one of the most polluted spots in the U.S. While the plant was in production, excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some were poured directly into a creek running alongside the plant and emptying into a larger stream. PCBs are contained in private lawns fertilized with soil from the plant.
The people of Anniston have breathed air, planted gardens, drunk from wells, fished in rivers, and swum in creeks contaminated with PCBs without knowing the danger. As public awareness grew in the 1990’s, health authorities found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish –- and people. The cleanup is now underway, and will take years, but once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, it is there forever.
Monsanto closed its PBC plant in Wales in 1977. In recent years, residents of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors emanating from an old quarry outside their village. As it turns out, Monsanto dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB plant into the quarry. British authorities have identified the site as one of the most contaminated places in Britain.
What did Monsanto know about the potential dangers of the chemicals it manufactured? Information from court records indicates Monsanto knew quite a lot. The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about the toxicity of PBCs is clear.
In 1956, the company tried to sell its PCB containing hydraulic fluid, Pydraul 150, to the navy. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results from the product, but the navy decided to do its own testing. As a result, navy officials informed Monsanto that they would not buy the product, saying that “application of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits tested” and indicated “definite liver damage”. According to an internal Monsanto memo divulged during a court proceeding, “no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines”, stated Monsanto’s medical director.
In 1966, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant submerged test fish. He reported to Monsanto that, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 ½ minutes.”
The company swung into action to limit the PR damage when the Food and Drug Administration found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant in 1970. An internal memo entitled “Confidential –- F.Y.I. and Destroy” from a Monsanto official, reviewed steps to limit disclosure of the information. One aspect of the strategy was to get public officials to fight Monsanto’s battle: “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” according to the memo.
The plant manager of Monsanto’s Anniston site “convinced” a reporter for The Anniston Star that there was nothing to worry about. An internal memo from Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, summarized the story that subsequently appeared in the newspaper: “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commissions, the feature emphasized the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”
The real truth is that there was huge cause for public alarm for the harm done to the public by Monsanto. But that was the old Monsanto, not today’s shiny new Monsanto. Today’s Monsanto says it can be trusted –- that its biotech crops are “as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crop”, and that the milk produced from cows injected with its artificial growth hormones is identical to the milk from untreated cows.
About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.
Multinationals Make Billions In Profit Out of Growing Global Food Crisis
Speculators blamed for driving up price of basic foods as 100 million face severe hunger
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent/UK, May 4, 2008 Straight to the Source
Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.
The prices of wheat, corn and rice have soared over the past year driving the world's poor - who already spend about 80 per cent of their income on food - into hunger and destitution.
The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world's richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn.
Cargill's net earnings soared by 86 per cent from $553m to $1.030bn over the same three months. And Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world's largest agricultural processors of soy, corn and wheat, increased its net earnings by 42 per cent in the first three months of this year from $363m to $517m. The operating profit of its grains merchandising and handling operations jumped 16-fold from $21m to $341m.
Similarly, the Mosaic Company, one of the world's largest fertiliser companies, saw its income for the three months ending 29 February rise more than 12-fold, from $42.2m to $520.8m, on the back of a shortage of fertiliser. The prices of some kinds of fertiliser have more than tripled over the past year as demand has outstripped supply. As a result, plans to increase harvests in developing countries have been hit hard.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that 37 developing countries are in urgent need of food. And food riots are breaking out across the globe from Bangladesh to Burkina Faso, from China to Cameroon, and from Uzbekistan to the United Arab Emirates.
Benedict Southworth, director of the World Development Movement, called the escalating earnings and profits "immoral" late last week. He said that the benefits of the food price increases were being kept by the big companies, and were not finding their way down to farmers in the developing world...
Don't hide your head in the sand about the issueof GM food! Educate yourself! This is a very important issue that affects ALL consumers and could potentially do more damage to the human race than nearly anything else ever created by man. If you think the GM food issue is just a big conspiracy theory made up by alarmists, you are fooling yourself. Educate yourself about GM foods. Do the research yourself, don't just blindly trust the government on this, they are in Monsanto's back pocket. Start off by watching the video "The Future of Food". You can watch the introduction below
If the video doesn't work, you can view it HERE You can purchase the entire 88 minute documentary HERE
Next watch the French documentary "The World According to Monsato". You can watch the entire 108 minute video below.
I've been talking about this subject for over a year now, ever since I orginally saw the entire "The Future of Food" doucumentary. I can hightly recommend watching it. It will totally change your outlook on what you consume! This is a real concern to us because we are SURROUNDED by farmers who use Monsanto seeds. Their seed has the potential of infiltrating the food supply that we grow for ourselves. This really angers me, because we try really hard to grow only organic/heirloom seeds that are GM free and to grow them in a natural, organic way. Please, educate yourselves on this subject, it's too important to just ignore!
Ebooks
by Susan
NEW!!
Nourishing Ways: Recipes
and Healthy Eating in the
Spirit of
"Nourishing
Traditions" 88 Pages |
Format: Ebook
Price: $7.49
NEW!!
My Homekeeping Handbook:
Forms and Handy Hints for
Making a Homekeeping
Handbook
Free Black Forms Pack
Included!! 59 Pages |
Format: Ebook
Price $7.49
