GM videos

Adams is so much of an activist type, which is both good and bad, but I bought Jeffrey Smith’s book Genetic Roulette a few years back because I wanted to read more than the occasional 1-2 page internet article. It is solid work listing in both outline and detailed summary form the results of dozens of private and public sector studies (most of which latter are very hard to find despite being government funded) and those results establish with very little doubt that GM is not ready for prime time, let alone human and animal consumption.

More disturbingly, perhaps, the book shows how the agro-business industry leadership has successfully insinuated itself into various national and international legislative processes to make it almost impossible for their poisonous products not only to be sold, but to slowly dominate the supply at the level of what farmers end up using.

My personal #1 reason for choosing organic as much as possible is simply to discourage the farming and consumption of GMO foods which I regard as truly dangerous to our planetary food supply over the long term, both because they are proven bad for you, but also because as they are used more and more, other strains of fruits and vegetables, not to mention soil, are reduced in variety and number.

It’s a bad business.


“97% of fhe varieties of vegetables at the beginning of the twentieth century are now extinct.”  This is what deeply concerns me. Also, the larger companies buy up patents on competitive strains so that they can push their preferred strain, further centralizing supply, and further ‘monoculturing’ our human society.

It’s a bad business.

Film blurb: “There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America – a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat.

The Future of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.

Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, The Future of Food examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today. (More at


Personal exchange of goods and services is a right

We have almost the same laws in Canada. As mentioned previously on this blog I cannot automatically sell traditional, lacto-fermented cabbage, or even fresh almond milk on my table at the Farmer’s Market, nor at a stand near my house on the highway.

At what point to laws supposedly designed to promote ‘health and safety’ go too far, and also at what point do they stifle small, local initiatives – not to mention employment – and promote an increasingly corporate (and usually low wage in local terms) situation?

Obviously, that’s a judgment call. But I believe that goods and services being offered within a local radius (say a 2 hour drive) should not be subject to the same rules as stuff that is made in large volumes and shipped long distances. This is true for both food and basic goods, but especially for food. Something that is picked a few hours before being sold, or made by hand in small quantities and sold soon after being made is inherently different from something that is mass produced, then packaged/processed, transported long distances and sold long after its inception. It is not right that the same rules are applied to what are, in essence, very different ‘products’.

And of course the modern so-called ‘scientific’ approach does not recognise the value of promoting/protecting vibrant local culture, including local business by locals for locals, does not recognise the harm done by agro-business monoculture methods to both culture and the environment, and therefore does not factor them in at all. So their notion of ‘Health’ and “Safety’ is very narrow and again, intentionally or not, favours the large para-local corporate model over the small, hand-made, local one.

And so it goes….

(NOTE: Washington Times is a highly partisan, rather bad, publication. But the protestors presumably are real. And not the story comes from the email address:

Good news for Coffee drinkers

America’s breakfast beverage of choice has received a lot of attention in the past decade. Researchers still disagree on coffee consumption’s relationship, or lack thereof to stroke and heart disease, although two recent large and sophisticated meta-anlayses have shown no increased risk, and some protective benefits in both cases. Meanwhile, other researchers have moved on to examine other diseases, and so far, results suggest a surprisingly wide range of benefits associated with coffee consumption. Most recently, scientists have gone so far as to suggest that coffee drinking may reduce your risk of…death. Coffee drinkers will certainly be happy to hear of the many coffee health benefits.

Europe will ban Mercury Amalgam

A European Commission report by the BIO Intelligence Service (BIOS)1 recommending the phase-out of dental amalgam and mercury in button cell batteries has many wondering if the whole of Europe will eliminate the use of dental mercury by 2018.It’s about time, and hopefully it would push the United States to quickly follow suit. Currently about half of U.S. dentists are mercury-free, and 77 percent of consumers who are informed that amalgam fillings are mostly mercury would choose a mercury-free alternative and are willing to pay more for it.  The European Commission has been working to reduce mercury exposure to humans for the past seven years. While the official stand has been that dental amalgam is safe, recent studies suggest otherwise. Sweden has already phased out dental mercury, and several other European countries have either significantly reduced its use or have imposed restrictions on it. The United States has been shockingly slow to respond to mounting evidence of significant harm from dental amalgam.It’s important to understand that the term “silver filling” is profoundly deceptive, as the composite material contains anywhere from 49 to 54 percent mercury, not silver. The American Dental Association (ADA) has historically covered up this fact, and at one time even declared that removing mercury fillings is unethical — despite the known fact that dental amalgam emits mercury vapor after it is implanted in your mouth, and this mercury is bioaccumulative and endangers your health in many ways.The BIOS recommendations have yet to be adopted, but the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the Mercury Policy Project say they welcome the study. Project coordinator for the EEB’s Zero Mercury Campaign, Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, said the work shows that “mercury use must be phased out,” especially since alternatives to mercury use in dentistry are available. “It’s high time that mercury becomes the exception rather than the rule,” she said to PR Newswire2.

Beware: Amalgam Fillings Must Be Properly Removed!

While even a single mercury filling can contribute to health problems, you should not rush into removing amalgam fillings, as improper removal can take a heavy toll on your health by releasing large amounts of mercury vapor into your system all at once.  So please, do NOT make the mistake of having your amalgam fillings removed by a dentist who is not properly trained in safe amalgam removal. Research has shown that if you do not take proper safety precautions during the removal process, mercury levels in your blood can rise three to four-fold, which may result in acute toxicity.

Therefore, make sure to use a biological dentist that is trained in properly removing mercury fillings. Here are several sources to help you locate a dentist trained in biological dentistry:

For a complete description of how to safely remove mercury amalgam, see the guidelines created by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)7. Some things that need to be done to keep you (and your dentist) safe during the procedure include:

  • Providing you with an alternative air source and instructing you not to breathe through your mouth
  • Using a cold-water spray to minimize mercury vapors
  • Putting a rubber dam in your mouth so you don’t swallow or inhale any toxins
  • Using a high-volume evacuator near the tooth at all times to evacuate the mercury vapor
  • Washing your mouth out immediately after the fillings have been removed (the dentist should also change gloves after the removal)
  • Immediately cleaning your protective wear and face once the fillings are removed
  • Using room air purifiers

Avoid making the same mistake I did 20 years ago when I had all my amalgams removed by a conventional dentist. He was competent, but unfortunately clueless about mercury toxicity and used no precautions. As a result I received kidney damage. It was an expensive and health-damaging mistake.

I also suggest you get healthy BEFORE having your fillings removed, as you want your detoxification mechanisms optimized prior to removal. To help you get started, please see my nutrition plan. To remove mercury that has already accumulated in your body, I highly recommend reviewing my Mercury Detoxification Protocol, which details the things you can do right now to help rid your body of this toxin. If your mercury levels are seriously elevated, you should work with a knowledgeable health care practitioner to help you through the detoxification process to avoid further damage to your health.

Commentary: I often find Mercola’s site a bit too commercial and self-promotional. At the same time, he also seems to cover important topics. And yet again, I feel inspired and obliged to add that am not sure if worrying overmuch about these things is all that helpful. But after a large ‘reconstructive’ filling lately, I felt very ill and will check with my dentist when he returns from vacation if they removed an old amalgam filling in the process. Headaches, neck aches, even aches down the arm, hints of arthritis etc, all came up acutely after the procedure a month ago. I would love to have a holistic dentist in the area and would immediately sign up even though I think the dentist I see now is highly competent, willing to work with those with lower incomes, and also consider various options. But like most of them if you even bring up the subject of fluoride, amalgam etc. his eyes glaze over and he is dismissive of such concerns. I go along, but inside I don’t trust him or them since such issues could be treated with more respect, clear information could be made available so you can study the issue more easily and so forth. Instead the approach taken is like with most ‘conspiracy theory’ type issues: to simply denigrate or insult the concern.I was in another dentist’s office this week getting a second opinion whilst my usual dentist is on holiday and when I brought up the issue of their possibly being longer term problems with necrotic elements in root canals, immediately became hostile and said that there were no such concerns since the 1920’s. Either he is lying or he is a fool. I intend to research this just a little and then send him a letter pointing out his error and urging him not to be so inaccurate. Unless, of course, I am the one at fault here, in which case I shall publish more here on the blog!

Also: check out the mercury detoxification link above. It is worth reading if only to better understand how diet and health connect.


This is about fluoride. The reconstructive filling I recently had is infused with fluoride which somehow leaches continuously into you in order to prevent infection. It is not working since the ongoing pain indicates the presence of infection/inflammation, but also I am getting a regular fluoride dose. And what is worse, it seems one cannot discuss this with the dentists. Nuts!


Also related:

Fluoride in produce

(NaturalNews) Most of the talk concerning fluoride exposure these days centers around the chemical’s forced presence in many public water supplies, and how this is causing an epidemic of chronic health problems. But little do many people realize that fluoride exposure is also problematic throughout the food supply, including in fresh food crops that have been sprayed with pesticides and herbicides made from fluoride compounds.

Grape growers in particular have long used a chemical known as cryolite, which also goes by the trade name Kryocide, to deter leaf-eating and other types of pests. This fluoride-based chemical is used on all sorts of food crops, in fact, including on many different fruits and vegetables consumed by millions of people. And because insects have yet to build up a resistance to cryolite, despite its having been in use for at least 50 years, the chemical has become a staple pesticide for many growers.

Cryolite is very easily absorbed by the crops to which it is applied, which means that people who eat grapes, or who drink wine made from grapes that have been sprayed with cryolite, are inadvertently consuming untold amounts of toxic fluoride. It turns out that cryolite contains aluminofluoride ions that shed fluoride ions, which then pass through the blood-brain barrier and contaminate brain tissue.

Since fluoride chemicals are persistent and do not biodegrade, they often build up in soils where plants uptake them into their roots, stems, leaves, and even their fruit. This has clearly been observed in grapes, for instance, which often contain levels of fluoride far higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride of four parts per million (ppm).

Many domestic wines, in fact, have levels of fluoride so high that they cannot be exported to Europe and other places where MCL thresholds for fluoride are lower than they are in the U.S. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., the chemical company responsible for producing Kryocide, actually put out an advisory for domestic grape growers a while back warning them not to use as much cryolite on grape crops intended for export, as the crop would not meet proper safety standards. (

National organic standards permit use of fluoride on organic crops

Sadly, conventional crops are not the only ones subjected to fluoride chemicals. Even though many of the more than 150 fluoridated pesticides on the market today are prohibited for use on crops grown according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) established organic standards, the agency still allows the use of fluoride chemicals on organic crops.

According to research compiled by Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, the USDA, when crafting its final guidance on National Organic Standards (NOS), ignored public concern about allowing the use of fluoride on organic crops. Despite all the evidence showing fluoride’s dangers, and the fact that it is a synthetic chemical that has no place in organic agriculture, the USDA sided with the EPA in declaring that sodium fluoride is inert, or inactive.

“To call sodium fluoride an ‘inert’ is Orwellian and defies one of the NOS’s stated principles: producers shall not use ‘natural poisons such as arsenic or lead salts that have long-term effects and persist in the environment,'” wrote Dr. Connett and his wife Ellen in a published paper on the use of fluoride chemicals in agriculture.

“Sadly, the use of fluoride in organic farming could undermine the public’s confidence and safety in organic food — both here and abroad. This will become more obvious as the movement against fluoridation of public water picks up momentum worldwide. As it does, more and more people will be asking questions about fluoride levels in their food. Unlike the List of Inerts, fluoride levels in organic food cannot be hidden.”

Avoiding California wines, grapes may limit your fluoride exposure

Because cryolite is primarily used just in California, sourcing wine and grapes from other states, or from outside the country, may help to limit your exposure to toxic fluorides. The Seattle Times, in a 2007 “Q&A” piece about wine explains how grapes grown in both Washington and Oregon, for instance, are not sprayed with cryolite, which means they will naturally contain lower levels of fluoride. (

Similarly, wines made in other countries such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain will also have lower levels of fluoride overall as the grapes used to make them are not treated with cryolite. And even though national organic standards technically allow the use of certain fluoride chemicals on organic crops, it does not appear that cryolite is one of them, as many fluoride-sensitive individuals have not had a problem drinking organic wines or eating organic grapes.

The worst grapes for fluoride, it turns out, appear to be conventional varieties grown in California. Non-organic wines from California tend to test the highest for fluoride content, and various anecdotal reports indicate that they are the most likely to elicit negative side effects among those with strong sensitivities to fluoride. (

Your best bet is to stick with organic grapes and wines sourced from outside California, whenever possible, or to personally contact individual wineries and grape growers to inquire about whether or not they use cryolite, bone meal, and other high-fluoride treatments on their grapes. You can also inquire as to whether or not they regularly test for fluoride levels in their wines or grapes.

Sources for this article include:

Commentary: Although I follow this sort of stuff at the same time I don’t like to get too worried by such reports. Since moving to Cape Breton, I have learned to accept that I cannot eat organic as I did (mainly) before moving here. That said, when I was in France and Germany I also didn’t eat organic because it simply is not available; but that said, the quality of meat and vegetables in those countries seemed much higher. Eating a good peach (they have different grades reflected in higher and lower prices) in France is an almost orgasmic experience; we cannot get such produce here. Maybe Pete’s Froutique is selling some but since I have never sampled his wares I have no idea. Certainly nothing in the local supermarkets, and of course we can’t grow peaches here anyway.

That said, I think it behooves all of us to be aware of many of the industrial / agrobusiness related practices that are going on. Yes, this article is from a US perspective, but since most of our produce in the supermarkets here comes from the US, it is pertinent.

Again and again I am convinced that the best thing is to shop local, preferably organic, but even if not, then shop local. The money stays in the economy, you help improve livelihood for people in your surrounding community who are growing food and give less of your dollars to corporations who park the profits elsewhere (i.e. NOT in your community) and mainly only offer minimum wage jobs, with very little skill and productivity learning quotients, which in turn dumbs down our local communities, in return. Not to mention that the produce, although it is very efficiently grown and harvested and hybridized (and even genetically modified) to look good, and consistently so, is seriously deficient in most of the nutrients its more natural, or wild, progenitors provided.

Supermarkets, although a modern miracle in many ways, are also very expensive in many others.

Buy local!!

Serious drought – over half counties in US

( There is a picture gallery in above article)

I don’t know what this will mean for us in Canada, but generally when the price of animal feed and sugar goes up, everything goes up. Most of this mass-produced stuff is purchased for pennies though in really it shouldn’t make all that much difference. It could even be good (though I very much doubt it): maybe they’ll stop using GM corn in animal feed and to make sugars for so many (bad, cheap) food products!

Related Article:

This week has provided two very clear examples of why it is so important to keep on prepping.  In the United States, the historic drought ravaging the central part of the country is absolutely devastating our crops.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, drought is affecting nearly 90 percent of all corn crops in America at this point.  This is pushing the price of corn to levels never seen before.  On Tuesday, the price of corn hit another new record high of $8.20 a bushelon the Chicago Board of Trade.  Over the past six weeks the price of corn has risen more than 50 percent, and it could go a lot higher as the drought continues to absolutely bake America.  Meanwhile, the massive power grid failures in India are reminding us all just how incredibly dependent we are on electricity and technology.  Power was cut off to nearly a tenth of the entire global population on Tuesday, and there was quite a bit of panic about that even though power is rapidly being restored.  So what would happen to them (or to us) someday if the power went off for good?

As much as humanity would like to think that our technology has conquered nature, that simply is not the case.

Without the rain that falls from the sky, there would be mass starvation on this planet.  We are not immune to drought, and there are a lot of indications that the drought we are experiencing right now is just the beginning of a longer trend.

For example, one team of scientists has just published a study that says that the western United States could be facing a “100-year drought“.

They say that the recent drought of 2000-2004 was the worst long-term drought in more than 800 years.  The following is from a recent CTVNews article….

The four-year-long drought that affected western Canada and the U.S. at the turn of the century was the worst to hit the region in 800 years, say scientists who warn that dry spell was nothing compared to the “megadroughts” still to come.

A group of 10 scientists from the University of British Columbia as well as several American universities write in Nature GeoScience that they believe the bone-dry conditions seen between 2000 and 2004 could become the “new normal” in the region.

At one point on Tuesday nearly one-tenth of the entire population of the globe was without power.

( Giant dust-storm in Phoenix, Arizona )