“The foreskin is cut off the penis. That’s a form of mutilation. You should leave the child as he is, as he comes out of the womb. Hes finished, hes complete. You shouldn’t take things off, especially when there’s no medical reason. I think male circumcision is worse than an incision of a girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed. The consequences can be worse for boys than for girls.”
“I also survived circumcision, a barbaric practice designed to remind you as early as possible that your genitals are not your own.”
“Creator of the Universe went to great trouble to create the foreskin. Then insisted that you cut it off. Makes sense.”
“If circumcision has any justification AT ALL, it should be medical only. Parents’ religion is the worst of all reasons –– pure child abuse.”
“Handed a small baby for the first time, is it your first reaction to think, beautiful, almost perfect, now please hand me the sharp stone for its genitalia.”
“I can’t find the compulsory mutilation of the genitals of children a subject for humor… It’s designed to repress sexual pleasure… The full excision, not just the snip but the full mandatory covenant is fantastically painful, leads to trauma, leads to the dulling of the sexual relationship. And can be, in itself life-threatening at that moment. We have records, I can show them to you, of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds in the United States of boy babies who died or had life-threatening infections as a result of this disgusting practice.”
“The vast majority of the world knows there’s no reason to circumcise. Someone should tell the doctors.”
Penn & Teller…
“Shouldn’t our son have the choice whether he wants to wear a condom or cut off part of his dick? Put down the knife. Step away from the baby.”
“People mutilate their kids dicks because of visuals. That’s what circumcision is about. Look, Im circumcised, I didn’t ask to be. I’m sure a lot of you are circumcised. I’m sure a lot of you circumcised your kids. When you really stop and think about it, its kinda fuckin’ crazy… I would never circumcise my kid.”
“I think its stupid. If I had a boy I wouldn’t circumcise him… I got robbed. I got robbed. Sliced. I think its a fuckin’ gross tradition man… I just think its a weird fuckin’ tradition that we need to end. People get like, really bad infections. Its not completely innocuous – kids have lost their penises because of circumcision… It’s a dick it’s not a Jack-O-Lantern alright? You don’t have to chop parts off of it to make it look better.”
“I am circumcised, and I tell you something, I despise it. I despise it. I despise it… I am completely pissed off that Im circumcised.”
What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? (See Footnote 1, below.)
What do the tonsils, appendix and foreskin have in common?
Cutting the tonsils, appendix and foreskin from infants and children was high fashion in the 1950’s and 1960’s (as were hysterectomies for women). If a child had a history of too many sore throats, tonsils and adenoids were removed; if a child had a sore abdomen, the appendix was removed. If the child was born with male genitals, the foreskin was removed – and other parts were also cut from the genitalia of girls. “If in doubt, cut it out.”
Tonsils and appendixes usually were removed because they were considered to be diseased. Sometimes, however, they were removed to “prevent” them from becoming diseased. People figured nature had made careless errors when designing an otherwise amazingly brilliant machine.
One young boy I knew came home with an appendectomy. I asked why. He said his mom had taken him to the emergency room for a tummy ache. “What did you have for lunch?” I asked him. When he began to recount the food he had eaten before his surgery, it was obvious to me that he had suffered from severe gas in his intestines. His lunch with a friend had consisted of several bologna sandwiches, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches – all on white bread – that he had washed down with several glasses of lemonade. Jeez! I’d’ve had a tummy ache too – Wouldn’t you? But the doctor had neglected to ask. He just cut.
Then someone determined that the tonsils and appendix have important immune system functions. So a huge number of children who are now adults lost valuable parts of their bodies due to lack of that important understanding. Deficient in insight and wisdom, many members of the medical profession just cut and cut and cut. Tonsils and appendixes are now removed only in severe medical conditions.
Nature was vindicated. Fashion changed and American doctors no longer routinely performed tonsillectomies and appendectomies. Good riddance! Foreskins are still cut because they are still considered to be nature’s little mistake.
In the Victorian age, when puritanical values ruled, people thought it was risqué to show an ankle and pornography was hard to come by. No good American dared to speak of the penis or its foreskin except in hushed tones to a medical doctor. Doctors claimed they had found the solution to masturbation. They then declared that masturbation was the cause of a plethora of diseases. They began a war on male and female genitalia – healthy genitalia.
In 1888, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., inventor of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, wrote in his Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects:
A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision… the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice [masturbation], and if it had not previously become so firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him more cunning in his vice. (See footnote 2.)
In short, “Let’s discourage masturbation/pleasure with pain.” Circumcision has been a cruel and unsuccessful experiment. We now know full well that it didn’t work. One survey shows that men without foreskins masturbate more frequently and participate in more dangerous sexual activities (oral and anal) than those with foreskins. And yet both the good Doctor Kellogg’s cruel circumcision recommendation – and breakfast cereal – “stuck” in the public’s mind.
After the fear of masturbation became a less compelling reason to cut children’s private parts, the medical industry would still not let go of the practice, as it was so profitable. Since Kellogg’s time, claim after claim, excuse after excuse has contributed to holding the circumcision door open, In the 1970’s nearly every boy in America lost his foreskin. Unfortunately, most trusting American parents are glued to the “circumcision is good for you” sales pitch. They think of circumcision as a surgical panacea for what ails you. In truth, each and every attempt to justify the routine circumcision of infants has been disproved and discarded. Still, they test the waters, blaming every possible physical, mental and emotional aberration on genitals as nature made them.
Doctors continue to circumcise little babies for a few main reasons:
They are business people who have bills to pay and circumcision is a quick snip, an easy buck – that unfortunately causes a lifetime of sexual dissatisfaction for the adult and his partner.
They have not yet been educated in the important functions of the foreskin.
They haven’t yet realized their legal liability. The American Medical Association (AMA) has warned its members to “take the high road of ethics,” but it has not yet warned them of the legal ticking time bomb inherent in this deceptively simple, profitable, profoundly abusive, non-medical procedure.
They have not listened to their patients (the babies) as they scream, “No!” at the top of their lungs.
They have not listened to their own hearts as their tiny patients scream, “No!”
Tonsils and appendices were finally determined to have important immune system functions, so they are now usually spared the knife. But foreskins are still routinely removed, even though they are healthy human tissue. Studies by Taylor and Cold reveal that the foreskin provides important immune system functions, as well as the tonsils and appendices. If you can teach an old doctor new tricks, perhaps there’s hope for the survival of future foreskins.
In the meanwhile, parents might want to practice saying, “Thank you, but no thank you,” to all their friends, family members and medical personnel who press for circumcision. And once the foreskin has been saved from the human tissue sales industry, you may also need to explain to doctors and nurses that it’s not ok to retract the foreskin – Let Junior do that for himself, in his own time. Foreskin retraction is dangerous, malpractice and should be pursued as such if the M.D. or nurse manages to do the deed. What is it about these people and babies’ genitals?
1. What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? They have the same middle name.
2. Kellogg, John Harvey. Plain Facts for old and young: Embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life. I.F. Senger & Co., Burlington, Iowa, 1891, p.111.
Posted: July 8th, 2015 | Author:admin | Filed under:Dentistry, Health, Teeth | Comments Off on Root canal procedure risks exposed
Excerpts from a very important article about a subject that most people have not considered. A friend of mine, years ago immediately went to the dentist to have a root canal extracted, once he discovered this information about root canals. The “first principles” can be applied to many other medical procedures – circumcision and vaccinations, surgery, radiation and pharmaceutical drugs.
“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
How do we decide what is correct and what is false in medicine and dentistry? In other words, how do we decide who or what to believe when it comes to healthcare, integrative or Western medicine? With so many opposing points of view on the same health topic how do we know which one to believe?
If you are more inclined to prefer a more natural approach to medicine does that mean discarding everything that allopathic medicine has to offer? Conversely, if one chooses to follow a predominately mainstream medicine approach, then should all natural alternatives be discarded as useless? Naturally, the answer is, ‘of course not.’ There are good and bad in both camps. But how do you distinguish the good from the bad – the correct from incorrect?
How to protect your health by using ‘first principles’
You do this by first distilling any conclusion down to the fundamental principles upon which the conclusion is based and reason up from there. When either accepting or challenging current belief systems, it is imperative that all reasoning and conclusions be drawn from the level of established science, and not on assumptions, preconceived prejudices, or analogy. This is the concept of first principles. Fundamental truths upon which any hypothesis or theory is based must conform to both rational consistency and empirical observation. Any deviation from these principles will often lead to false conclusions.
If any of the parameters upon which a theory is based fails to conform to both rational consistency and empirical observation, then this theory must be discarded as incorrect.
So what does that mean? It means that all conclusions must be first based on rational consistency of what can be possible as defined by the accepted laws of physics, chemistry and biology. That doesn’t mean that it is possible, only that it can be possible. Is it rational? Can it happen? If so, then the first condition of establishing correctness is satisfied. If not, then we can immediately dismiss it as incorrect…
Applying first principles to a root canal procedure and risk analysis
So how do we apply this to our analysis of the risks involved with root canal-treated teeth?
Currently accepted beliefs and accepted truths, such as the American Association of Endodontists (Dentists who specialize in performing root canals) assertion that root canal teeth cannot cause or contribute to systemic disease and do not leak bacteria and toxins systemically, must be distilled to the first principles upon which this claim is based.
We first must define all of the properties of root canal teeth. Then, we can ask the question on how these objective properties of root canal teeth relate to known biological and physical principles. We continue the analysis from the ground up until we reach a logical conclusion. Then, we test this conclusion with direct observation.
Let’s look at the role of root canal teeth and heart disease. It has been established that a main driving factor in cardiovascular disease and heart attack is inflammation and the resulting damage to the lining of the coronary artery (endothelium). We know that infection and bacterial toxins are one source of this inflammation and endothelial damage. But, how does a root canal contribute to cardiovascular disease?
It is established that all root canals remain infected and become more infected over time. The American Dental Association has acknowledged this. It is also true that these bacteria produce potent exotoxins. Dr. Boyd Haley has demonstrated the presence of potent toxins leaching directly out from the root canal tooth root.
The untold truth about a root canal procedure
The American Association of Endodontists states that toxins are not released from root canal teeth. It claims that both bacteria and toxins that are inside the tooth remain “entombed” within the tooth and that they do not travel systemically to other sites in the body. And if bacteria do make their way out of a root canal tooth this organization further asserts that the infection will remain local and not travel to distant sites in the body…
All root canal teeth remain infected and become more infected over time.
Pathogenic bacteria inside the root canal-treated tooth produce potent exotoxins that leak out of the tooth and travel systemically.
Bacteria inside the root canal tooth leak out of the tooth into the adjacent bone and can travel to distant sites of the body.
The immune system does not always eliminate these pathogenic bacteria.
Bacteria from root canal-treated teeth have been found in distant sites of the body such as coronary artery plaque, pericardial fluid in coronary diseases patients, and in ruptured cerebral aneurysms. This has been positively confirmed by documenting the presence of the DNA unique to root canal pathogens at these sites.
By using first principles analysis, we can conclude that root canal teeth do spread both bacteria and bacteria-produced exotoxins systemically throughout the body, and that these toxins and bacteria may cause or contribute to a variety of systemic diseases.
About the author: Dr. Kulacz had extensive training in implant dentistry through the Brookdale Hospital implant training mini residency and placed many implants during the first half of his private practice career. The second half of his career was entirely devoted to the surgical treatment of root canal extractions and cavitations. Dr. Kulacz continues to do research on the oral/systemic connection. His website is Coletrex.com. His latest book, The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick, co-authored with Thomas E. Levy, MD is available through MedFox publishing at ToxicTooth.com – See more at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/western-medicine-root-canal-procedure-1481.html#sthash.jelej7dO.dpuf
Posted: June 30th, 2015 | Author:admin | Filed under:Air | Comments Off on “Killer Germs” Obliterated by Medicinal Smoke Smudging
Patricia says: I smudge (will be smudging more now!) and also diffuse essential oils. You can sprinkle them around, put them on a diffusion ring and place them on the top of a lightbulb, buy a diffuser, or even wear the yummy ones as perfumes. Different ‘flavors’ perform different functions. Cedarwood and lavender are a good combination for bugs that bug pets. I am becoming quite fond of geranium oil. Eucalyptus encourages you to breathe fully and freely and deeply. Some scents perk you up; others calm you down for a restful sleep.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Sayer Ji, founder of the fabulous website GreenMedInfo.com
…The burning of herbs and plant resins for medicinal and spiritual purposes – so-called ‘smudging’ – is an ancient practice among indigenous people around the world; one increasingly adopted by Westerners. Smudging is a technology believed to unlock the ‘spirits’ of various plant allies to restore balance and ease to the individual or group. Some liken it to taking a ‘spiritual shower,’ enabling you to wash away emotional and spiritual negativity that accumulates in your body and the spaces you live…
First, we uncovered a 2006 review published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology titled “Medicinal smokes,” that looked at single and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across 5 continents. The researchers found, with surprising overlap worldwide, medicinal smoke is mostly used to address the following specific organ systems: “pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).” They also found that “ambient smoke,” which is the type of passively inhaled smoke generated by smudging/incense, is traditionally believed to be an effective “air purifier.” The review argued that modern medicine should investigate medicinal smoke as a drug delivery system, owing to the following advantages: “The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production”…
The researchers reported their amazing findings:
We have observed that 1 hour treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 hour in the closed room. Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonas syringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens in the open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment. We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
Did you catch that?
Not only did the burning of medicinal herbs clear aerial bacterial populations by 94% within one hour, but a full day later, the closed room was still effectively decontaminated. Even more amazing, a full month later, seven other pathogenic bacteria in the open room were still non-detectable.
When one considers that modern urban air has been found to contain at least 1800 diverse bacterial types – including families with pathogenic members – this finding could have profound implications for combating a increasingly deadly array of antibiotic-resistant bacteria against which even the CDC itself has acknowledged its impotence. Consider also that a recent microbiome of NYC’s subway system found close to 1700 different microbes, including those responsible for Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) and Bubonic Plague (yersinia pestis).
Also, considering that conventional methods of air and surface sterilization and odor neutralization use chemical cocktails (e.g. Lysol) that are much less effective than advertised (one study found them up to 10 times less effective than believed), smudging or the use of natural incense products might constitute a far safer and more effective approach…
It is a sign of the increasingly controversial status of routine circumcision that the American Academy of Pediatrics policy released in August 2012 attracted strong dissent, not merely from long-standing critics of circumcision, but from previously uncommitted child health experts in Europe as well. The scale of the dissent is all the more striking given that the policy differs little from the quietly received 1989 statement (which found that circumcision had potential benefits, but not enough to justify it as a routine) or even the 1999 statement, which reached a neutral stance and left it up to the parents. The only major difference in the new policy is that while it continues not to recommend circumcision, it states that the benefits outweigh the risks and are great enough to authorize parental decision-making and payments by health insurance providers. Although this is largely a continuation of the status quo, it is precisely on these points that objections have fallen most heavily.
According to the critics, the AAP policy is flawed because it does not establish that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risk and does not justify its secondary (but unrelated) contention that the decision about whether a boy should be circumcised should be made by his parents. While the brief (widely quoted) statement asserts that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks” the lengthy (but less readily available) report acknowledges that
The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis.
In its reply to their critics, the AAP admitted that it had not surveyed the literature of complications case reports, but added that the benefits of circumcision “were felt to outweigh the risks of the procedure” (AAP Task Force on Circumcision 2013).
“…had not surveyed the literature… benefits… were felt to outweigh the risks…? Surely real scientists would actually study the subject before expressing their feelings! Oh, ethics! Oh, evidence-based medicine, wherefore art thou? How revealing and how embarrassing for them that they did not bother to study the complications case reports. “Don’t confuse us with the facts,” head-buried-in-sand ostrich behavior here – and so, children continue to be tortured and traumatized by people masquerading as “healing professionals”.
This is one of my favorite books. From 1980, but as relevant now as it was then.
“The doctor of the future will interest his patients
in the care of the human frame,
in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease. Thomas A. Edison
Author’s Preface to the book Sunlight
At one time or another on the road of life, all of us have arrived at a crossroads in our thinking. Practicing medicine has brought me there, perhaps an illness will place you there too.
As I have seen the options, we may, on the one hand, choose to respect and appreciate nature. We may see within her a wisdom and intelligence that far surpasses man’s greatest technological achievements. We may come to realize that man’s best interest is served through obedience and conformity to nature and that sound health is the result of this obedience.
On the other hand, we may choose to believe that we can improve upon nature, that we can manipulate her to our own benefit. We may believe that we are responsible for nothing but our own pleasure, that we may freely violate and disregard natural law and then artificially manipulate the deleterious consequences. We may believe we can eat poorly, sleep rarely, work constantly, exercise sparingly and avoid any physical consequence by the use of some wonder drug or miraculous surgery. It is evident that this is the road most of us choose, for during the 1900’s the volume of drug business in the United States has increased by a factor of 100. It is estimated that 20,000 tons of aspirin are consumed per year, or 225 tablets per person. Not only is the drug industry booming, but also, as everyone already knows, there has been a tremendous increase in health care costs. To live indiscriminately and pay the price later is easier – for the moment. Maybe that’s really why we choose it. It requires no discipline and no sacrifice. It conforms to our cultural pleasures.
ln my medical practice, I see many whom no drug or surgery will restore to health. The hoped-for escape becomes only a means to muffle the most noxious complaints or a method to prolong a dying existence. For all advances in science, we still remain humbly, pitifully dependent upon the forces of nature: air, water, food, and sunlight. It seems in fact, the more advanced our technology becomes, the more capable we are of destroying ourselves – not only by a nuclear holocaust, but also by more insidious inroads into our health such as the tremendous change that has taken place in the area of food technology. Death has always been easily within man’s grasp, while life and health remain the property of nature and her forces. Out of this conviction, this book has been written. I believe there is ample evidence in the scientific literature that sunlight, free of technological distortions, is not only beneficial, but necessary for human health.
Zane R. Kime, MD, MS
You can read reviews of this book at Amazon.com. If you’d like to download the entire book as a pdf, note that it is a very large file – 36 megabytes. Download here: Sunlight by Zane Kime MD
You have been told that sunlight causes cancer. Now they say that the Vitamin D from sunlight is vital to life and that it is the free radicals from sun lotions and sunscreen that cause cancer. I say, sunshine in moderation – which means enjoy the sun but be careful not to burn. I use nature’s offering to skin health: aloe vera – with no additives.
A new study finds vitamin D — the ‘sunlight vitamin’ — strikes to the very heart of breast cancer malignancy.
Breast cancer is not what most people think. Beneath the intimidating statistics that make it seem like a juggernaut of inevitability or a time bomb of genetic determinism ready to go off in the asymptomatic breasts of millions of women, a far more complex conversation is occurring among clinicians and researchers concerning the true nature and causes of cancer, and why conventional therapies fail to turn the tide against the second highest cause of death in the Western world. To fully appreciate this, one must go to the first hand research itself.
For instance, a new study published in The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology identifies  an overlooked root cause of breast cancer (cancer stem cells), as well as a natural intervention that has yet to be incorporated into the conventional standard of cancer care.
Titled, “Vitamin D compounds reduce mammosphere formation and decrease expression of putative stem cell markers in breast cancer,” the new study brings to the forefront the role of breast cancer stem cells (BSCs) in breast tumor formation and their progression towards malignancy and treatment resistance. For many decades it was assumed that cancer results from DNA-damaged cells succumbing to fundamentally chaotic processes, ‘going rogue’ and reproducing clonally (making identical copies of one another), without an acknowledgment of the different types of cells that comprise tumors. The most salient difference is between the cancer stem cells (sometimes referred to as ‘mother’ cells) which are capable of theoretically infinite self-renewal and produce all the differentiated ‘daughter’ cells in a tumor colony, which themselves are not capable of living indefinitely. It is actually the existence of the much smaller number of cancer stem cells which causes cancer recurrence, as they are not only resistant to conventional chemotherapy and radiation, but their numbers can actually be increased (enriched) by these two ‘therapies.’ Therefore, any cancer therapy that ignores the cancer stem cell subpopulation in favor of killing the non-tumorigenic daughter cells in order to ‘debulk’ the tumor (i.e. shrink it), will not result in destroying the root of the cancer. To the contrary, it can generate the illusion of ‘remission’ while in fact making the remaining tumor colony far more malignant, setting up the conditions for aggressive recurrence years later…
Deepak Chopra told a fascinating story in his book, How to Know God. A friend of his had injured his foot while working out in a gym. The pain in his foot increased over the next few days, and he found it increasingly difficult to walk. Upon medical examination it was found that he had a common ailment known as planar fasciitis – the connective tissue between the heel and the front of the foot had been stretched or torn. His friend decided not to have surgery and instead to tough it out, but in time he found it so painful and difficult to walk that in desperation he sought out a Chinese healer. This Chinese man seemed to be quite ordinary. He gave no indication of being mystical or spiritual, or in any way gifted in healing. But what happened next turns medical science on its head. Chopra’s friend explained:
“After gently feeling my foot, he stood up and made a few signs in the air behind my spine. He never actually touched me, and when I asked what he was doing, he simply said he was turning some switches in my energy field. He did this for a minute or so and then asked me to stand up. I did, and there was no sensation of pain, not the slightest. You have to remember that I had limped in, barely able to walk…
“In complete amazement I asked him what he had done. He told me that the body was an image projected by the mind, and in a state of health the mind keeps this image intact and balanced. However, injury and pain can cause us to withdraw our attention from the affected spot. In that case, the body image starts to deteriorate; its energy patterns become impaired, unhealthy. So the healer restores the correct pattern – this is done instantly, on the spot – after which the patient’s own mind takes responsibility for maintaining it that way.” (pp 221-222)
The world’s leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, “Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs”.
In short: avoid GMO foods. Video published on Sep 19, 2012
“In 1992 the Food and Drug Administration decided that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the functional equivalent of conventional foods. They arrived at this decision without testing GMOs for allergenicity, toxicity, anti-biotic resistance and functional characteristics. As a result hundreds of millions of acres of GMO crops were planted in America without the knowledge or consent of the American people: no safety testing and no long term health studies.
“The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I’ll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor.
“There is a chance that Monsanto’s grip will be broken in California where a GMO labeling initiative is on the ballot. And here in Congress, my legislation HR 3553 will provide for a national labeling law. Americans have a right to know if their food is genetically engineered. It’s time for labeling and for people to know how their food is being produced.”