Anson Digital Concerns: a family of on-line ventures
October 16, 2015

H.R. 1599: the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

The truly Orwellian name for the DARK Act

Do you live in Alaska?

If you live in Alaska, help educate Senator Murkowski.  Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, appears to be in need of some special assistance.  The Senate recently passed a spending bill for the Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that included a provision requiring genetically engineered salmon to be labeled.

The salmon labeling requirement was proposed by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and while she justifies her desire to label GMO salmon well, she doesn't seem to understand how crop pollination works, and appears to be waffling when it comes to labeling transgenic plants.  As reported by AgriPulse: "Murkowski told colleagues that farmers shouldn't be concerned that the salmon labeling would set a precedent for labeling biotech crops.  'Corn doesn't swim from one field to another and propagate with other corn in another state.  Fish move.  Fish escape,' she said."

She really needs to understand that pollen, like fish, "escape" their confines, by way of blowing winds and pollinating insects.  There's absolutely no way to stop transgenic plants from propagating outside their designated planting areas.  Since they cannot be confined, transgenic plants pose just as much risk to the environment and to native or conventional plant species as transgenic fish do.

If you need any proof of this out-of-bounds transgenic plant proliferation, remember that Monsanto has successfully sued hundreds of unsuspecting farmers for patent infringement when unlicensed GE crops were found growing in their fields, brought there by the forces of nature itself, not by illegal planting of GE seeds.

It's really quite simple, either you're for labeling all genetically engineered foods, or none of them.  There's no overriding difference between GE animal foods and plants, because they both pose very similar threats.

If you live in Alaska, I encourage you to speak to Senator Murkowski, and to let her know that insisting on labeling for GE salmon, but not for other foods, is both illogical and short-sighted; and if she supports labeling GE salmon, she is by principle bound to support labeling for all other transgenic foods as well, and for the same fundamental reasons.

Do you live in Maryland?

Special action item for Maryland: Warn Senator Mikulski of potential sneak attack.

One oft-used tactic we need to be fully aware of and prepared for is that lobbyists may try to attach GMO labeling as a rider to another "must-pass" bill, in order to squeeze it through the Senate.  To do this, they have to go through Sen. Mikulski of Maryland, since she is top ranking Democrat of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  If you live in Maryland, please speak to Sen. Mikulski and tell her to watch out for this, as she's been very supportive of GMO labeling historically.

Encourage presidential candidates Paul and Sanders to be champions for the people.

Senator Rand Paul shows signs of being opposed to the preemption of state rights.  The Campaign for Liberty has come out against H.R. 1599, and since Sen. Paul is running for President, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, they both need to hear from you about this issue, regardless of where you live.

They need to know that, as Presidential candidates, they have the opportunity to seize the vote of the people by tackling the GMO labeling issue head on.  Sanders is from Vermont, which passed the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill in 2014.  The law is set to take effect next year, provided it's not nullified by H.R. 1599.  Sanders, along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who is also the most senior member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and California senators Boxer and Feinstein are all supporters of GMO labeling, so please urge them to be more vocal and to speak out about these issues.

It would also be a great idea to contact the rest of the presidential candidates, as well as the media or anyone else with a public voice.  Social media could also be used effectively to get the word out on this.  It not just a matter of your health; it's a matter of your freedom.

On July 23, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, by a bipartisan vote of 275 to 150.

What is H.R. 1599?

In short, despite the fact that recent polling shows that 93% or more of Americans want all GMO foods to be clearly labeled as such, this bill allows producers of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs, like Monsanto) to sell their products without GMO or GE labeling.  And, in an absolutely Orwellian twist, it goes so far as to allow these foods, created in a laboratory, to be marketed as "natural", further disguising the actual content of the food.

Equally troubling, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act will not allow producers of truly organic, non-GMO foods — you know, the ones that are natural — to label their products as non-GMO, unless they acquire federal certification.  Such a certification process is very expensive, beyond the financial reach of most non-GMO producers; so the consumers' ability to know the nature of their food is completely thwarted.

So much for "Accurate Food Labeling".

Given this bill's obvious intent to obscure from the consumers' view what these foods are, more correct name for it would be the DARK Act.1

H.R. 1599 also removes the right of your state to protect you from this madness, by preempting the states' right to require such labeling on products sold in said states, and limiting the states' right to regulate GMO crops within their borders.  This bill is set for a vote in the Senate soon.

Your action needed

I cannot encourage you strongly enough to contact your senators and make them understand how important this issue is to you, and indeed the nation as a whole.  At the very least, I would encourage you to write or email you senators.  Better still would be a phone call.  A phone call has greater impact than an email; but a face-to-face meeting is usually the most impactful of all.  You can also find your senators' contact information by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.  If you have the opportunity, it would be a great time to increase your impact by meeting your senators in person.  It would also be of help to set up an in-person meeting with your senators' staff.  Your concerns will be passed on to your senators.  You can set up such a meeting by contacting their district offices.

You can use the points made in this article as reference (cutting it down to size; I'm always excessive).  It's important to have these conversations, as many senators have already been misled and misinformed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and biotech lobbyists.

Here is the letter I sent to my Senators:

Dear Sen. ***:

I appreciate your letter of August 10, 2015.  I have considered your points, but feel there are issues that still need to be addressed.

First of all, traditional hybridization techniques are a far cry from GMO creations.  Controlling cross-pollination, to develop a plant with different characteristics — something akin to dog breeding — is a whole different world than incorporating non-food genetic material, such as bacteria and insect genes, to create a new kind of plant, with genetics that have never before been seen in nature.  There have been serious problems with normal hybridization, as well.  Over the years, nutritional content gave way to production.  Today, you have to eat about ten times the vegetables needed 50 years ago to get the same nutrition, if you can get that nutrition at all.  Not only that, but hybridization has removed many of the enzymes that were previously found in plants, leading to digestive issues, food allergies and more.  Many studies have also indicated that this plays a part in much of the asthma, arthritis and ADHA/Autism affecting so many in our country.  It's hard to call that more edible.

But GMO brings in a whole new set of problems.  I will get into more of that below.  For now, I would just like to note that I have a very hard time eating GE foods.  My digestive system has a defense reflex that simply makes swallowing GE foods very difficult.  For example, I used to have a very large appetite for popcorn.  It's almost shameful how much I could eat at one time.  But, with GE popcorn, I can barely get a handful of popcorn down.  And if, by some miracle, I manage to eat more than a few bites of GE foods, I have digestive problems, feel very lethargic and get really bad headaches and joint aches.  These kinds of issues have been reported to the FDA and USDA by thousands of people, yet these agencies are still convinced that the science supports the safety of these foods.  That is non-sense — or willful blindness.

I also believe in sound science; however, we tend not to see much of that, when it comes to things beneficial to the pharmaceutical and agri-business industries.  From poorly designed studies to studies with negative results getting lost along the way, to heavy pressure being applied those who are skeptical of such studies, to the revolving doors between decision-makers and corporate offices, there is a decided dearth of sound science.  Science seems more concerned about money than the truth these days.

Despite this, peer-reviewed published research has shown that GE foods do, in some instances, cause cancer, loss of fertility, severe allergies and asthma and a host of other problems.  In fact, there have been several well conducted studies published in peer reviewed journals, showing significant toxicity from GMO foods.  Every First World country in the world, except the USA, has outlawed GMO foods.  Now, why would a country outlaw a food that has been proven to be safe?  The answer is clear: They don't.  After reading the studies, they concluded that GMO foods are not safe.

There simply is no way that, with taking an objective look at this, you could conclude that there is absolutely no difference at all between conventional food and GE foods.  But H.R. 1599 would declare, by the power of federal law, that there is no difference between a genetically engineered food and its comparable non-GMO food.  This violates basic freedoms.  With so much good research opposing the so-called science that GE foods are just like comparable non-GMO food, the government should not step in and pick the winner in this debate.  The government should not artificially close the debate for the sake of special interests.  Allow the people the right to engage in the debate and choose what they find convincing.

And, until that debate is settled, it would be far better to err on the side of caution, requiring that GE foods be clearly labeled, and allowing non-GMO foods to be so labeled, without imposing unnecessary reporting requirements and regulations.

Misplacing the burden of regulatory requirements and its consequences

It should be noted that, with H.R. 1599, reporting and regulatory requirements are lifted from those who are creating something new (GE foods) and placed on the shoulders of typically smaller farmers who are producing the foods that consumers want.  But, with H.R. 1599, in order for a farmer to tell the consumer that the product is non-GMO, he has to drive himself out of business acquiring the federal certification needed in order to put "non-GMO" on the label.  This is not moral and reeks of special interest favoritism.

This bill makes it virtually impossible for natural food producers to label their foods non-GMO, something that 94% of the American public wants to see.  It does this through extensive and mandatory regulations.  Very few farmers will have the money, ability and time required to jump through all the regulatory hoops needed to let you know that their food is truly natural.  (H.R. 1599 also allows GMO foods to be labeled as natural; something truly Orwellian in nature.)  If this law passes, it will guarantee that I will never know if I am eating GMO food or not, unless or until I have identifiable negative reactions to eating it.  This is also true for infant foods and baby formulas.  It eliminates a parent's basic right to protect his or her child.

Progressive government and the loss of choice

If I choose not to eat genetically altered food, how is it unsafe for me to make that decision?  Has natural food somehow become unsafe, and only the synthetic stuff is healthy?  Of course not!  This law is not about safety or accuracy in food labeling; it is designed for one, and only one, purpose: to make sure that the Big Agri companies, that have created these GMO concoctions, make as much money as possible.  This law is necessary for them, because the overwhelming majority of informed people choose not to eat GE foods.  This law effectively eliminates their competition by removing from the consumer right to choose, by eliminating his or her ability to make an informed purchasing choice.

This, in itself, is tyranny.

The simple fact is that H.R. 1599 does not provide for either economic growth or increased consumer safety.  It will destroy many small farmers, who cannot afford the burden of obtaining federal certification of their non-GMO crops, and it will subject consumers, like me, to the harm from GMO foods from which all avenues of protection have been stripped away, simply by no longer having the right to know.

Much of this boils down to state and consumer rights.  H.R. 1599 extends unprecedented protection to Monsanto and other biotechnology companies, while decimating state- and consumer rights.  The vast majority of Americans want to know if their food options contain GMOs.  This bill would essentially eliminate that information.  It is rightly called the DARK Act.1 But, this bill also violates states' rights, by barring states from creating their own food labeling requirements for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  As discussed below, the only practical effect in doing this is to remove choice from the American consumer, by hiding the presence of GMOs.  H.R. 1599 also preempts any and all state and local regulation of GE crops — increasing corporate control of our food systems.  Stripping away state's rights in this way feeds into the hands of accumulated power and corporate influence.  But, if we are to retain anything of the nature and character that once defined this great country, we need local democracy — and local control of our foods.

What follows is an extended discussion of this.

Should genetically engineered (GE) foods be labeled?  According to polling, the answer is "Yes".  That GMO foods should be clearly labeled — as in mandatory labeling — is supported by 94% of Americans.  The is clearly more bipartisan than the House vote of 275 to 150 in favor of H.R. 1599.

H.R. 1599, is clearly incorrectly named.  To call it "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act", is nothing short of a Progressive dream.  In truth, it should be called the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or "DARK Act".  Despite the desire of the overwhelming majority of Americans to know if a food or food product contains genetical modifications, under this bill, GMO foods and food products would not only not have to be labeled, they can be labeled as "natural".  But, there is nothing natural about them.  There is nothing accurate about this food labeling.  Making the situation far worse, non-GMO foods would require federal certification to be so labeled, adding a regulatory cost burden that many non-GMO producers simply could not bear.

The cost of state-by-state labeling laws

One rationale for H.R. 1599 is that a federal statute would help to reduce food costs across the country.  The claim is that letting each state set its own labeling requirements would be too costly for producers.  However, even with a state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws, GMO labeling will not increase the cost of food.  The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) claims that GMO labeling would increase the food prices on a family (living in New York) by an average of $500 is a lie.  Studies, common sense and historical examples tells us that printing four words (Produced with Genetic Engineering) on a food label will not increase the cost of that food at all.  The Environmental Working Group (EWG) produced an analysis of this, citing six different studies that have analyzed the costs associated with GMO labeling and found them to be negligible to nonexistent.

Further supporting this conclusion is that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) has launched a QR code program to provide "GMO transparency", in lieu of stating "Produced with Genetic Engineering" right on the label.  QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR readers.  The code brings you to a product website that provides further details about the product, and may be linked to a coupon or other marketing ploys.  How can printing four words on a label raise the annual food cost by $500 per family, while printing a new QR code and implementing and maintaining a website doesn't affect prices at all?

The simple fact here is that the GMA is not concerned about labeling costs; it is concerned that a majority of people, when presented with the option to eat GMO products or not, overwhelmingly choose not to eat them.  By making finding the truth about GMO content in foods time consuming and cumbersome, the GMA can count on many Americans staying in the dark about the presence of GMOs in their products.  This is not transparency.

The argument about a "patchwork" of state laws is also untrue.  The reality is that all of the state laws that have been passed or proposed require the same form of compliance; just four words: Produced with Genetic Engineering.  If essentially all states have the same requirement, how can this be called a "patchwork"?

The historical evidence also shows that, with 64 nations around the globe having already implemented mandatory GMO labeling, nowhere has this led to a rise in food prices.  None of the other label changes in the US have ever led to price increases.  Representatives Jim McGovern (Massachusetts) and Chellie Pingree (Maine), in an Op-Ed in the Boston Globe, stated:

While plenty of things impact the prices we pay at the grocery store — including transportation costs and ingredient costs — GMO labeling is not one of them. . . .  Food companies change their labels all the time, to make new claims, and all food companies will soon have to change their labels to make important changes to the Nutrition Fact Panel.  Adding a few words to the back of the food package about genetic engineering will not have any impact of the cost of making food.

Opponents of updating food labeling made the same bogus arguments when they fought nutrition labeling in the 1980s.  Back then, they claimed that disclosing the presence of calories, salt, fat and sugar would require costly reformulations.  But those much more significant changes to foods labels — adding the Nutrition Facts Panel and including more information about ingredients — didn't change the price of food at all.

Where labeling actually impacts the cost of foods is with H.R. 1599, where producers of non-GMO foods will have to go through the costly process of federal certification in order to make that claim.

And here is another key point: If the problem with GMO labeling is that the cost of compliance with a patchwork of state-to-state laws would raise food prices, removing that patchwork by requiring that all GMO products be labeled as such — as is the desire of 94% of Americans — would resolve the GMO producers' objections while satisfying the desire of the great majority of Americans.  It is just simple common sense to move in that direction, instead of secrecy.

What constitutes the "norm" in foods?  And who should pay?

Another important point is that consumers expect traditional foods — not GMOs — to be the norm; therefore, transgenic foods should carry the label and distinction of being "different".  This is just good common sense.  Even in this brave new world, it makes no sense that the consumer should expect that all foods are GMO, unless otherwise labeled.  Why would we expect all foods to be transgenic when, they're so novel, many of us don't even know they exist?

Using a USDA non-GMO certification program, similar to its National Organic Program, to differentiate products is completely backward, for a number of reasons:

Any law that prevents transgenic labeling simply legalizes food fraud.  This same logic should be applied to all GMO products.

To give GMO products a pass, while requiring that non-GMO producers follow a prohibitively expensive certification regimen in order to label food as what it is — non-GMO — turns things on it its head.  The burden of labeling should be borne by GMO producers.

GE foods: Are they really safe?

When considering GE foods, we must not confuse transgenic food development with traditional hybridization techniques.  They are not the same.  GE foods should be labeled because they are inherently less safe than conventional foods.

The top food ingredients we get from GMO crops today are high fructose corn syrup (corn), vegetable oil (corn, soy, canola and cottonseed) and sugar (sugar beets).  All of these ingredients have been scientifically identified as promoters of disease.  Of course, non-GMO corn, soy and sugar are harmful, as well.  So, in that respect, these are "substantially equivalent" in their hazard to human health.  However, he substantial equivalence ends there.

The number one trait we have in GMOs today is pesticide resistance, which allows the crop to absorb more of the pesticide.  Roundup Ready crops are sprayed with the broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup®, the active ingredient in which is glyphosate, which has been labeled a Class 2A carcinogen by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, the research arm of the World Health Organization).  Since GE foods expose consumers to higher levels of a known carcinogen, they should be labeled.

Research has also shown that Roundup® contributes to antibiotic resistance, which is now a well-recognized health threat in most Western countries.  More specifically, Roundup® was found to increase the antibiotic-resistance of E. coli and Salmonella, two pathogens responsible for a large portion of food borne illness and death.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not test food for glyphosate because a) it has been assumed safe, and b) it's too expensive.  (Glyphosate testing was only conducted once, in 2011, at which time 271 out of 300 food samples were found to have residues.)  If the US government cannot or will not test foods for a carcinogen — even when a food absorbs more of that chemical by design — then such foods should be labeled, to allow consumers to assess their own overall exposure risk, based on all the GE foods they buy on a regular basis.

To summarize some of these points, the GE ingredients in processed foods are well-established primary contributors to chronic disease.  They're also more heavily contaminated with an antibiotic-resistance promoting carcinogen that the US government does not test for.  Hence, GE foods are inherently less safe than conventional foods.

GE foods are — by definition — different from traditional foods

They're also, by definition, different from traditional foods, as they're hybridized using horizontal gene transfer, a process that does not occur in nature.  Still, the burden of differentiation for products created using natural, traditional hybridization techniques, has historically fallen on the hybrid producer.  Hence, the arrows of logic point to the fact that GE foods should be labeled.

It's similar to knowing where your food comes from

What's really ironic is, many of those opposing state rights and GMO labeling are generally in favor of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).  This is also relevant information for a customer; if you are for one, you should easily see why it is consistent to want both.  Where a product comes from and if it is transgenic: it may not have anything to do with safety, but it is certainly relevant to customers.

Reality check

It is also important to consider the promises versus the reality.

It was promised that pesticide-resistant crops would reduce pesticide use.  However, since the inception of pesticide-resistant GE crops, the use of glyphosate has dramatically risen.  In his paper "Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops," Dr. Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., a former Senior Scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), presents USDA data showing that glyphosate use has increased 12-fold since 1996, when the first GE crops were introduced.  Overall, annual herbicide use has risen by more than 500 million pounds.  The reason for this is due to mounting resistance among weeds.

It was also promised that insecticide-producing crops would reduce insecticide use.  Lobbyists claim that insecticide use has decreased over time, but usage data does not count the insecticide that is being produced by the plant itself, as a result of the genetic engineering.  Bt crops are designed to produce its own Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin internally, thereby reducing the need for topical application of the insecticide.

These insecticide-producing plants are registered with the EPA; but the EPA only counts topically-applied Bt insecticide, not that which the plants produce — all of which basically ends up in your food, since it's an integrated part of the plant.  This is probably why the EPA approved unlimited residues of GE Bt toxin in soybeans for human consumption in 2014.

Bt applied topically degrades quickly in the sunlight.  Typically, after one week, it is completely broken down (and sometimes as soon as 24 hours).  It can also be washed off.  However, this is not the case with Bt crops, because when produced internally, Bt does not photo-degrade, nor can it be washed off, so you cannot avoid consuming it.  This is concerning because, even when natural Bt toxin (the topical version) was fed to mice, they suffered tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as those to cholera toxin, and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.

It was also promised that GE plants would not create a pesticide or insecticide resistance.  However, the industry has been proven wrong on both counts, as exceptionally hardy super-weeds are spreading (resistance has been documented on 60 million farm acres across the US), and overproduction of Bt crops has created resistance in insects that now costs US farmers an estimated $2 billion a year in damages.

What about states' rights and preemption of state laws?

While I am not a fan of The President or his Executive Orders, it should be noted that on May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies on preemption.  The purpose of that Memorandum was to declare the new Administration's "general policy" to be that "preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption."

The President explained that, even though the Federal Government's role in promoting the general welfare is "critical", the States play a concurrent and often more aggressive role in protecting the health and safety of their citizens and the environment.  He stated that overreaching by the Federal Government, with respect to preemption, limits the ability of the States to "apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect the[ir own particular] circumstances and values. . . "

The President's Memorandum discouraging regulatory preemption comes against a backdrop of calls from Congress and others for increased regulation in a variety of areas.  The point here is that the federal government should act with great caution — and only with compelling national interest — in preempting states' rights.

What are some of the health risks associated with GE chemicals?

It should also be noted that the chemicals we're dealing with here can create adverse health effects, even at very low doses.  These include endocrine and epigenetic effects.  Research, published in 2007, found that aerial spraying of glyphosate, in combination with a surfactant solution, resulted in DNA damage in those exposed.  Another study, published this year, found that glyphosate, in combination with aluminum, synergistically induced pineal gland pathology, which in turn was linked to gut dysbiosis and neurological disease.  The study abstract offers a condensed layman's summary of the many mechanisms of harm, and their synergistic effects, which can be difficult to understand without some explanation:

Many neurological diseases, including autism, depression, dementia, anxiety disorder, and Parkinson's disease, are associated with abnormal sleep patterns, which are directly linked to pineal gland dysfunction.

The pineal gland is highly susceptible to environmental toxicants.  Two pervasive substances in modern industrialized nations are aluminum and glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®.  In this paper, we show how these two toxicants work synergistically to induce neurological damage.

Glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria, leading to an overgrowth of Clostridium difficile.  Its toxic product, p-cresol, is linked to autism in both human and mouse models.  p-Cresol enhances uptake of aluminum via transferrin.

Anemia, a result of both aluminum disruption of heme and impaired heme synthesis by glyphosate, leads to hypoxia, which induces increased pineal gland transferrin synthesis.

Premature birth is associated with hypoxic stress, and with substantial increased risk to the subsequent development of autism, linking hypoxia to autism.

Glyphosate chelates aluminum, allowing ingested aluminum to bypass the gut barrier.  This leads to anemia-induced hypoxia, promoting neurotoxicity and damaging the pineal gland.

Both glyphosate and aluminum disrupt cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved in melatonin metabolism.  Furthermore, melatonin is derived from tryptophan, whose synthesis in plants and microbes is blocked by glyphosate.

We also demonstrate a plausible role for vitamin D3 dysbiosis in impaired gut function and impaired serotonin synthesis.  This paper proposes that impaired sulfate supply to the brain mediates the damage induced by the synergistic action of aluminum and glyphosate on the pineal gland and related midbrain nuclei.

The argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides, and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.

In a recently published study, the authors poured through data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) database, looking for correspondences between animal and human disease, and correlations with pesticide usage.  Several of the plotted charts show animal and human diseases rising in step with glyphosate usage on corn and soy crops.  This includes conditions such as failure to thrive, congenital heart defects, enlarged right ventricle and liver cancer; and in newborns: lung problems, metabolic disorders and genitourinary disorders.  Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to the fact that our food supply is rapidly deteriorating in quality.  Excessive pesticide and herbicide use is also decimating soil and water quality.

It should be hoped that, in light of this new information, that H.R. 1599 will be reconsidered, and that mandatory labeling of GM foods will become law.


Tom Anson


Your Rights Removed For Monsanto's Benefit, by Dr. Joseph Mercola

The Public Health Ramifications of GMOs and Herbicides, by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr Mercola has many other articles on GE and GMO issues on his website.  They can be found by a simple search.

See also the articles on the DARK Act on the Alliance for Natural Health - USA website.

1 The Deny Americans the Right to Know Act.

Anson Digital Concerns  About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Feedback Form | ©2015 Anson Digital Concerns

Click Here For More Information