An agricultural giant called the Monsanto Company has risen to the top of the corporate food chains thanks to their genetically modified corn and soybean sees, seeds bred to withstand and even produce their own herbicides and pesticides.
But in the decades since they’ve appeared on the scene, two more things have sprung up: a new crop of “superweeds” that have evolved to resist our chemicals, and root worms that have become insecticide-resistant “superworms,” both of which are set to swarm the Midwest in the coming year.
Rather than come clean, Monsanto has been covering their tracks, working to market their corn as fresh produce and spending millions to kill California’s Prop 37 requirement to label their corn and soybeans as genetically modified products.
The FDA still doesn’t require safety studies for Monsanto’s new strains, they’re designing food to produce dangerous chemicals, and these same chemicals have been breedingsuperworms that will devastate the landscape in the decades to come.
Don’t stay silent. Please, join us in calling on Monsanto to stop fighting Prop 37 in California, and spread this information on the danger of genetically engineered crops to as many friends as you can.
It’s time we knew what’s in the food we’re eating and the crops these companies are growing. Stop the superworm swarm: Join us in calling for greater transparency at the Monsanto Company!
‘Why is cupric sulfate — a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide — being used in infant formula? And why is it displayed proudly on product labels as a presumably nutritious ingredient?
Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants and roots of plants, parasitic infections in aquarium fish and snails, as well as algae and bacteria such as Escherichia coli, cupric sulfate hardly sounds fit for human consumption, much less for infants.
Indeed, infants are all too often looked at as “miniature adults” from the perspective of toxicological risk assessments, rather than what they are: disproportionately (if not exponentially) more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental exposures. Instead of reducing or altogether eliminating avoidable infant chemical exposures (the precautionary principle), the chemical industry-friendly focus is always on determining “an acceptable level of harm” – as if there were such at thing!’