“…if you talk to the community in general the picture’s a lot different…. we’re speaking to communities that say there’s still hundreds missing”
We’re visiting this subject again with a recently released video at YT by The Felon Show that takes you into the flood affected area of the Esk Valley showing you close up, the complete devastation.
There is a crew of volunteers there on the ground who receive no public funding, assisting locals with the clean up. They are from the group called Man Up (all info & links in video notes).
To briefly summarize (and you can listen to the finer detail for yourself) those who have officially been accounted for as passed are those who have been identified by family and friends. However, as the presenter in the video states … “if you talk to the community in general the picture’s a lot different…. we’re speaking to communities that say there’s still hundreds missing”.
As reported in our recent article citing other eye witness testimonies, the mainstream narrative is totally at odds with this. Whose testimony do you think would be the most reliable? In the above link a helicopter pilot reported seeing hundreds in the flood waters.
House swept off its foundations and relocated: Photo credit: screenshot
We now have a ‘system’ that persecutes those who do what normal humans do … run to the rescue, without hesitation … witness the helicopter pilot now being threatened by Civil Aviation for doing so! (See here also, it’s not the first time in NZ).
Please watch this important video and share it far and wide.
In this series, we explore the contentious findings surrounding fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply and answer the question of whether water fluoridation poses a risk and what we should do about it.
Previously: A confounding factor in the fluoride debate is the arsenic that contaminates the industrial sources of fluoride added to public water systems.
A groundbreaking federal lawsuit could ban fluoride from drinking water, overturning a decades-long program aimed at preventing cavities that has been challenged by mounting evidence of harm.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2017, and it appears to be nearing its conclusion. Under the act, citizens can challenge the EPA in court when the agency rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. The FAN’s suit is the first in the 44-year history of the act to actually get to trial.
The lawsuit has included pointed testimony from leading experts on environmental toxins and admissions from both EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials that fluoride could be linked to specific harms. The lawsuit has also revealed government interference in crucial scientific findings.
From TerrainTheory.net Dr Williams is an environmentalist and co-founder of OurGeoengineeringAge.org, an organization taking an evidence-based approach to exploring “our planet’s most pressing yet under-reported global environmental issue.”
In this conversation with Rob we discuss:
The history of geoengineering
How OGA came to be
What’s really going on up there
The chemistry and physics behind weather modification
The year is slipping away and now there are only a few weeks till the shortest day which heralds in a new season for gardening.
While its quiet gardening wise you have ample time on those nice days to prepare for the coming season of gardening.
Lets start off by those that are fortunate to have a glasshouse or tunnel house and to get it ship shape and ready for growing in soon.
Likely there has been insect problems over the past season and that is very normal as a glass house provides ideal conditions for pests to breed.
You may have some plants still in there growing either coming to the end of their days or not too bad.
What I am going to suggest is a simple way of fumigating your glasshouse but in doing so the plants in there may or may not survive.
It is better to leave any plants that are coming to the end of their days inside to be fumigated and kill the pests on them rather than take them outside and then the pests can colonise your outside plants.
If you have the odd plant in a container that you do not want to lose then best take them out while you are fumigating the house.
Any plants taken out should be placed in a good light but sheltered place and spray them all over; later in the day near dusk, with Wallys Super Neem Tree Oil with Wallys Super Pyrethrum added.
Also in case of root mealy bugs in the mix sprinkle some of Wallys Neem Tree Powder onto the top of the growing medium.
This, with later watering, will fix any pests in the mix feeding on the plants roots.
Place 2-3 tablespoons of Wallys Sulphur Powder onto a heath shovel or spade sitting in the middle of the glass house on the ground. In a larger tunnel house or glasshouse you would need to have more than one sulhpur burning to give a good coverage from the fumes.
A metal plate could be used instead if preferred as long as it is metal and cant catch on fire.
Close all vents leaving the door open for you to leave once lite.
The sulphur powder is not easy to light and you need a very strong flame such as used for killing weeds.
Otherwise dampen a little of the pile of sulphur with some Methylated Spirits and light that.
A fire Starter may also be used. Once the sulphur gets burning it is very difficult to put out.
Once alight it is time for you to get out as the fumes will make it difficult to breathe and you dont want to die with the pests.
Close the door behind you and leave closed up for about 24 hours.
Then open door and vents and any plants you left in the house give them a light sprinkling with water from the hose. It may help save some on them.
After a few hours close down the vents and door as you dont want any stray pests finding their way back in.
Its a good ideal to build up a smell in the house to deter pests from entering by sprinkling Wallys Neem Tree Granules over the floor or soil.
Hang some fresh yellow sticky white fly traps in the house to catch any flying pests.
If you grow in soil in the glasshouse and have any concerns about diseases in the soil then apply Terracin to the soil as a drench and a couple of weeks later a drench with Mycorrcin.
Your glasshouse is now ready for the coming season and you can start germinating or planting seedlings after the 21st of June.
In the gardens outside keep the weeds down while they are slow to grow.
I prefer to use a sharp carving knife and slice below the crown of larger weeds in under the soil.
This leaves the rest of the roots to decompose in the soil and feed the soil life and plants.
Smaller weeds just scrape the blade of the knife over the soil and wipe them out.
Whitefly and pests on citrus trees are easy to control by placing Wallys Neem Tree Granules under the tree from trunk to drip line and in about 6-8 weeks all the pests feeding on the tree or on the roots will be gone.
There will be a lot of pests from last season harboring over in your gardens so later in the afternoon when the sun is off the plants spray Wallys Neem Super Tree oil with Wally Super Pyrethrum added over and under the leaves of plants where there was infestations earlier.
Good idea to add some Raingard and MBL to the spray as well.
If you have not done so yet spray all cold sensitive plants with Vaporgard, spray on frost protection.
Vacant vegetable gardens can be planted into a green crop.
Ones that can be used for different advantages are:
Blue Lupin – a quick growing, nitrogen fixing crop suited to cooler climates.
Barley – adds protein, nitrogen and organic matter to strengthen the soil structure.
Oats – used to combat soil erosion and to help break up hard clay soils.
Mixed grain – adds nitrogen and organic matter to the soil as well as helping to prevent wire worm.
Mustard – cleans up harmful soil fungi and provides good control of wireworm and nematodes, which often ruin root crops such as potatoes and carrots.
Mustard is a good weed suppressant suited to cooler climates but do not use this crop if you are planting cauliflower, broccoli and other brassica in the same area the next season.
It is not a good time of the year to re-pot house plants as going into a larger container may cause over watering and damage.
This time of the year small drinks of water just to moisten up the mix of potted plants indoors.
Warm water is nice for them also.
Keep warm and dry..
This week special is 3kilo bag Wallys Neem Tree Granules 25% off or $7.00 off the price of the bag
and 25% off Wallys Sulphur powder 500 grams or $4.50 off the normal price. Order on line at www.0800466464.co.nz and dont forget to put in remarks THIS WEEKS SPECIAL offer end next Sunday. I will phone you after receiving the order in regards to method of payment and shipping
Phone 0800 466464 Garden Pages and News at www.gardenews.co.nz Shar Pei pages at www.sharpei.co.nz Mail Order products at www.0800466464.co.nz New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
With glyphosate featuring again lately, this will be a useful tool in helping determine which are the safer products to purchase. The report is free, however you will need to register an email to enable you to download. Go to ‘Glyphosate Report’ in the main menu, top of page. EWNZ
ROUNDUP®(OR OTHER GLYPHOSATE BASED HERBICIDES) ARE SPRAYED ONTO NON-GMO CROPS AS A DRYING AGENT, JUST BEFORE HARVEST…LEARN MORE FROM OUR DATABASE AND CHOOSE ORGANIC TO AVOID HIGH LEVELS OF GLYPHOSATE (AND OTHER SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES) IN YOUR FOOD.
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup®, the most popular herbicide in the world. This defoliant destroys vegetation. Do you know how much glyphosate is in the foods you and your family consume?Crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton have been genetically engineered to resist Roundup. Why is there so much glyphosate in oats and other food grains? How much is safe? Who decides food safety, and how are the tests conducted? Does glyphosate cause cancer?
As food has become increasingly adulterated, contaminated and genetically engineered, the need for laboratory testing has grown
HRI Labs is often hired to test foods claiming to be non-GMO, “all natural” and/or organic. Testing often reveals such claims to be untrue. Several Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavors were recently found to contain glyphosate
Grains, legumes and beans typically have the highest levels of glyphosate contamination due to the routine practice of desiccation, where glyphosate is sprayed on the crop shortly before harvest to improve yield
HRI Labs has created two glyphosate tests for the public — a water test and an environmental exposure test. The latter will tell you how much glyphosate you have in your system, giving you an indication of the purity of your diet
Seventy-six percent of people tested have glyphosate in their system. People who regularly eat nonorganic oats have double the glyphosate of those who don’t. People who regularly eat organic food have glyphosate levels 80% lower than those who rarely eat organic
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 29, 2017.
As food has become increasingly adulterated, contaminated and genetically engineered, the need for laboratory testing has exponentially grown. John Fagan, president of Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs), is an expert in this area. As explained by Fagan, HRI Labs “makes the invisible, visible, giving you the ability to see what is in your food and your environment.”
Fagan studied biochemistry and molecular biology at Cornell University, where he also got his Ph.D. After doing research for eight years at the National Institutes of Health, he went into academia and conducted cancer research using genetic engineering as a research tool. This experience is ultimately what raised his concerns about genetic engineering, especially as it pertains to food.
As a result, he created the first lab for GMO testing in the U.S., followed by labs in Europe and Japan. He’s also trained laboratories in 17 other countries in GMO testing. “What this did was make GMOs visible. Before that testing was there, nobody could tell whether those soybeans, or that corn was genetically engineered or not,” Fagan says. “After GMO testing was available, people had a choice.”
HRI Labs tests both micronutrients and toxins — the good and the bad. “We feel that the kind of testing we’re doing can open a window for you in each of those areas, so you can make better choices about the food you eat, and that you share with your family,” he says.
Testing Techniques and Equipment
There are several types of tests that can be done on a GMO food. Antigens are one type of test. DNA testing is another. Since DNA is far more stable than proteins, genetically engineered foods, even when highly processed, can be easily identified with DNA testing.
A test commonly used to check DNA is the polymerase chain reaction or PCR test. Because it amplifies the DNA signal, it can detect even a single genetically engineered corn kernel in a bag containing 10,000 or more corn kernels.
The chromatograph linked to a mass spectrometer is another central piece of equipment that HRI uses. It allows you to test for a wide variety of things at very high sensitivity. Unfortunately, the cost and complexity involved prevents many labs from having this tool.
“Liquid chromatography is capable of taking a sample of food … or whatever you’re interested in, and fractionating it into hundreds of compounds, separating them out. That is then fed into a mass spectrometer; a machine that measures, ultimately, molecular weight of whatever it’s looking at.
With that you can detect — at extremely low levels and identify very specifically — almost any natural or unnatural compound … down to the parts per trillion in many cases. To give you a sense of what that means, 40 parts per trillion, which is [the limit of] detection that we have for some materials, is like if you were to take a single drop of that chemical and dilute it into 20 Olympic swimming pools full of water.
That’s the extent of dilution required to achieve 40 parts per trillion. This is extreme sensitivity. These [instruments] are like the Teslas of analytical chemistry.
[Liquid chromatography linked to a mass spectrometer] is what we use for measuring glyphosate. Because these machines are very expensive, many of the analytical labs out there don’t have access to them. Also, because it is very specialized equipment, you need somebody with a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry, or equivalent, to do this kind of testing. What we’re doing is … unique in that way.”
The Politics of Food Testing
One of the reasons we decided to collaborate with HRI Labs in testing our own supplements is because many commercial laboratories used to confirm the purity of raw materials tend to provide distorted or prejudicial information. One of the great benefits of HRI Labs, in my view, is its objectivity and ability to provide accurate data, thanks to the sensitivity of their equipment. While many labs will claim to be independent, their primary customers are big food companies.
“They don’t want to embarrass [their customers]. They don’t want to bring anything to the surface on that level, so they tend to give very superficial numbers,” Fagan says. “Typically, they work to thresholds that are established based on politics and convenience, not science and safety.
For instance, you can go to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) website, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website and they will say, ‘Wheat should have less than such and such amount of glyphosate in it.’
Glyphosate is … the most commonly used agrochemical, and it’s now been demonstrated to cause cancer, liver and kidney damage and birth defects. You’ll find there a number for it, but if you go to the scientific literature you discover that levels [of glyphosate] hundred or a thousand times lower … are in fact toxic to the system. For that reason, those government established thresholds are not very meaningful.”
This is a point worthy of reiteration: The use of politically-influenced safety thresholds to “prove” a food is safe is pervasive in the food industry. The only thing such safety levels accomplish is generating a false sense of security, which benefits food companies financially. HRI Labs, on the other hand, looks at the available research when establishing their threshold levels.
Glyphosate Testing
One of the toxins HRI Labs is currently focusing on is glyphosate, and the public testing being offered (see below) allows them to compile data on the pervasiveness of this chemical in the food supply.
When I participated in the environmental exposure test a while back, glyphosate was undetectable, which means levels in my system were below 40 parts per trillion, likely because I eat primarily organic and homegrown foods, and expel toxins I might come in contact with through exercise and regular sauna use.
“What we’re finding is there’s quite a range of levels of exposure, but that people who are eating organic generally have much lower levels. Women tend to have, on average, slightly lower levels than men. There are certain behaviors that tend to lead one to have higher levels.
For instance, it isn’t a super strong correlation, but it appears that if you are a golfer, you’re more likely to get exposed, because they use [glyphosate and other pesticides] on golf courses …
The reassuring thing is that if you … change your diet … and go to a diet that avoids things that might contain these chemicals, then within a week or two your levels of glyphosate will drop significantly. Glyphosate levels are a good indicator for guiding your dietary choices … Often people come back to us saying, ‘This changed my way of thinking about my diet.’ This is a good thing.”
Glyphosate Found in Popular Ice Cream Brand
HRI Labs is often hired to test foods claiming to be non-GMO, “all natural” and/or organic. Unfortunately, many times testing reveals such claims to be untrue. A recent case in point is that of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. HRI Labs’ testing revealed their ice cream contains glyphosate. Fagan tells the story:
“Organic Consumers Association and … Regeneration Vermont were concerned about what was happening with Ben & Jerry’s. They were concerned … that the dairy producers … were not even able to get a price for their product that would cover their costs for producing the milk. There was also a concern from people in the state that the dairies were polluting the lakes, and creating problems for the Vermont tourist industry …
They wanted to look into what was going on with the quality of the milk. They sent us samples and we did some really in-depth testing using the very best methods out there.
We used triple quadrupole mass spectrometry linked to high pressure liquid chromatography to actually look at the quality of the ingredients in a product. What we found with Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was a bit shocking in that it contained substantial levels of glyphosate …
Ten of the 11 flavors we looked at contained measurable amounts of glyphosate, and at least one of them contained levels that, according to most recent research, raised questions about safety. In particular, it had been found that glyphosate at quite low levels — levels considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency and FDA — … could actually cause problems like fatty liver disease.
As you may know, there’s an epidemic of fatty liver disease in America today, and it’s linked with things like metabolic syndrome … Organic Consumers Association has been discussing those results around the country, and discussing with Ben & Jerry’s if they could do something about that.
The obvious and most logical thing for them to do is to begin to use ingredients that are organic instead of just conventional ingredients, because organic bans the use of things like glyphosate in the production of crops …”
Substantial Amounts of Glyphosate Found in Many Foods
HRI Labs has investigated a number of other foods as well, including grains, legumes and beans. Most if not all of these types of crops need to dry in the field before being harvested, and to speed that process, the fields are doused with glyphosate a couple weeks before harvest. As a result of this practice, called desiccation, grain-based products, legumes and beans contain rather substantial amounts of glyphosate.
Quaker Oats,1 for example, were found to contain very high levels of glyphosate. People who regularly eat nonorganic oats also have elevated levels of the chemical in their urine. “These are the kinds of problems that are coming up out there,” Fagan says. “All that’s needed is for the grain producers to change their practices, so that they’re not spraying the fields with this weed killer immediately before they harvest it, and it will solve those problems.”
Wines also contain surprising amounts of glyphosate. As it turns out, weeds in vineyards are managed by spraying glyphosate, which ends up in the grapes as the roots of the grape vines pick it up through the soil.
“This testing … is making something that’s been invisible in our food system, visible to us,” Fagan says. “[A] vegetable like spinach that you buy in an American grocery store is going to contain, on average, eight different pesticides. That’s eight different pesticides, and you’re taking it home to feed your family without knowing that’s the case …
The reason you aren’t able to know that is because the chemical companies have done a really good job lobbying our government so that nobody in the supply chain has to talk about these … agrochemicals. The farmer doesn’t have to talk about them.
The brands that are selling products made from those [raw ingredients] don’t have to talk about them. The grocery stores don’t have to. They’ve been made invisible in our food system, and that’s a big concern.
We’re doing testing using rigorous methods, the very best methods out there, the most sensitive methods out there, to make these invisible things visible, so that you know more about what’s in your food system, and in the foods you’re giving to your family. This is so important, because this allows each of us to make better choices about the food they provide to their children.”
Water and Environmental Exposure Tests Now Available
HRI Labs is unique in that they’ve created two glyphosate tests for the public — a water testing kit and an environmental exposure test kit. The environmental exposure test is a urine test that will tell you how much glyphosate you have in your system. As mentioned earlier, this will give you a good idea of the purity of your diet. If your glyphosate level is high, chances are you’ve been exposed to many other agrochemicals as well.
So far, HRI Labs has analyzed more than 1,200 urine samples. The testing is being done as part of a research project, which will provide valuable information about the presence of glyphosate in the diet. It will also help answer questions about how lifestyle and location affects people’s exposure to agrochemicals. Here are some of their findings to date:
76% of people tested have some level of glyphosate in their system
Men typically have higher levels than women
People who eat oats on a regular basis have twice as much glyphosate in their system as people who don’t (likely because oats are desiccated with glyphosate before harvest)
People who eat organic food on a regular basis have an 80% lower level of glyphosate than those who rarely eat organic. This indicates organic products are a safer choice
People who eat five or more servings of vegetables per day have glyphosate levels that are 50% lower than those who don’t eat fewer vegetables
According to Fagan:
“So far, we haven’t seen any connection with rural versus city dwellers, or with seasonal changes. This indicates that most of the glyphosate is coming into our [bodies] through the food we eat and not through the environment around us.
Though, we have seen some interesting things. For instance, in the Midwest, we’re seeing that rain water has quite substantial levels of glyphosate … Rain water, although you might think of that as being a healthy source of water, is a little risky that way.”
GMOs Linked to Dramatic Rise in Glyphosate Contamination
HRI Labs is also collaborating with a research group at the University of California in San Diego that has access to urine samples from epidemiological studies in which populations were tracked over 15 and 20 years. By comparing urine samples from people going back into the 1970s, up until the present, they’ve been able to show that once GMOs appeared in the marketplace, glyphosate levels rose dramatically.
“[I]t shows there’s a correlation between the use of [glyphosate] in agriculture and the level of exposure of the population,” Fagan says. “Remember, there’s growing evidence that low levels of [chemicals] interact with each other, so that you have a little glyphosate here, and maybe some atrazine from another place, and those together might have a nasty impact …
That’s where we are with things today. We’re working in a focused way to look at other aspects of our food system, and looking not just for the pesticides and the negative things, but we want to look and understand what the connections between the way food is produced … and its nutritional value are.
What we’re seeing is that healthy soil makes healthy food, makes healthy people. We’re going to go into that using these very sophisticated techniques, like high pressure liquid chromatography linked to mass spectrometry, to look at all of the nutrients at once.
With these machines, from a single sample of broccoli we can look at 500 to 1,000 different metabolites, different nutrients, and in one fell swoop get a sense of … how does regeneratively produced broccoli compare with broccoli that’s produced using chemicals, or how does a chicken produced in a confined animal feeding operation compare in nutritional value to a chicken produced in a regenerative pasture-based production system?
We don’t have the answers to that yet, but I’ll bet we’re going to find big differences in the nutrition.
The protein value may be the same, and the fats and the carbohydrates, but [in] the micronutrients we’re going to see big differences, and it’s those micronutrients that make the difference in terms of the health of your physiology, the strength of bones, and the balance in your physiology. We hope to be able to bring some really powerful new information to you in this way …”
Food Testing Is Here to Stay The advent of GMOs drastically altered our food system in several respects, and not a single change has been beneficial. Today, factory farms have become one of the largest sources of toxic pollution that destroys soil, water and air quality, and threatens human health in more ways than one. Nutritional quality of food has declined while contamination with toxic chemicals and drug-resistant pathogens has increased. Nutritional and chemical testing is an invaluable tool to get an understanding of the full extent of the problem. It is our hope that, with enough evidence, change will eventually be brought about, if not from a government level, then from the ground up, driven by informed consumers demanding purer food. As mentioned by Fagan, my product development team is now using HRI Labs to evaluate the purity and quality of our own product line as well — an extra double-check, if you will, to ensure our products are maximally pure and safe, and of the highest quality and nutritional value possible. This is being added as another layer of quality control on top of our standard quality protocols. Again, if you want to test your drinking water or environmental exposure levels for glyphosate, those tests are now available to the public. You can find both of them in my online store. They’re provided as a service to my readers at the same price you’d pay if you were to order it right from HRI Labs.
Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.
To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:
Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts
How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.
“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.” EWG
An analysis of personal care and cleaning products found the top 10 most hazardous products include a children’s shampoo, JLo Glow perfume, Kaboom with OxiClean, Axe body spray and Organix Shampoo
Over-the-counter products are not inherently safe as there are nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics and only 10% have been tested for safety. This loophole was created by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which does not force companies to disclose trade secrets
The Environmental Working Group found perfumes typically contain a dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals, some of which are derived from petroleum. This chemical cocktail may be responsible for the rising number of adverse events reported after exposure to personal care products
Look for products without dangerous chemicals, including parabens, “fragrance,” triclosan and toluene, or consider making your own products at home from safe and natural ingredients
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 24, 2018.
Unfortunately, just because it’s sold over-the-counter does not mean a product is safe for you. In fact, of the nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics, only 10% have been tested for safety. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, they often do not exercise it.1
Adding insult to injury, the FDA tasks companies manufacturing and marketing cosmetics with ensuring their safety. Not only is this an obvious conflict of interest, but “neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific test to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.”2
So, while cosmetic companies are responsible for substantiating safety, there are no required tests and the companies do not have to share safety data. In fact, the FDA isn’t even authorized to order recalls of hazardous chemicals from the market.
Cosmetic3 companies may also fall back on a loophole in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,4 which allows companies to withhold information relating to “trade secrets,” under which fragrances and flavor ingredients fall.5
Participating with Environmental Defense and other U.S. groups, the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) tested personal care products and cleaning products sold at major Canadian retailers in order to identify undisclosed fragrance ingredients.6 A lack of federal regulation in Canada and the U.S. results in an increased risk of exposure to consumers.
Your Right to Know
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of the BCPP, is a broad-based national coalition of nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to protect the health of consumers by securing reforms necessary to eliminate dangerous chemicals linked to adverse health effects.7
The research project was triggered by scientific literature and prior product testing indicating chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption and other adverse effects were used heavily in beauty, personal care and cleaning products.
However, despite research evidence, there continues to be a lack of legislatively mandated labeling requirements, leaving consumers uninformed of the dangers in products they bring into their homes every day. For this test, BCPP and their partners purchased 140 different beauty, personal care and cleaning products for testing.
Of particular concern were products marketed to children, women of color and products marketed by celebrities as “good for the environment” or “green.” One of the more concerning results was that many of the personal care products tested contained more hazardous chemicals than the cleaning products.8
Millions of dollars and countless hours of lobbying have been poured into the industry’s fight against legislatively mandated ingredient disclosure. Fragrance is a big business as they are used in personal care products and cleaning products.
The value of the North American flavor and fragrance market is nearly $6 billion and forecast to reach $7.42 billion by 2020.9
Top 10 Most Hazardous Products Tested
The fragrance industry has nearly 4,000 fragrance chemicals at its disposal, which companies are not mandated to disclose. BCPP hired two independent third-party testing laboratories. The first assessed volatile organic compounds and the other performed two-dimensional gas chromatography on a subset of 32 products, including shampoo, deodorant, multipurpose cleaners and lotions.
There was an average of 136 chemicals in the cleaning products and an average of 146 in personal care products. The team then compared the product name against the type of chemicals triggering hormone disruption, asthma, developmental toxins and cancer.
From this data they ranked the top 10 products with the most hazardous chemicals in terms of the highest number linked to these health effects.10 The products making the top 10 dangerous products directly from the BCPP report were:11
Just for Me Shampoo — A children’s shampoo, from a hair-relaxing kit marketed to kids of color by Strength of Nature.
JLo Glow Perfume — A fine fragrance made by Coty and endorsed by music, television and film icon Jennifer Lopez.
Kaboom with OxiClean Shower Tub & Tile Cleaner — Marketed as a “great cleaner that is safe and friendly to use,” made by Church & Dwight Co.
Olay Luminous Tone Body Lotion — Made by Procter & Gamble and marketed for its antiaging qualities.
Axe Phoenix Body Spray — A body spray made by Unilever and marketed to young men using an overtly sexual ad campaign.
Marc Jacobs Daisy Perfume — Another Coty fragrance carrying the famous designer’s name and using beatific, radiant young girls in its marketing campaigns.
Taylor Swift Wonderstruck Perfume — A Revlon fine fragrance endorsed by the beloved pop country singer Taylor Swift.
Organix (OGX) Shampoo — A Johnson & Johnson product marketed as part of a “green/sustainable” line of products to young women.
Formulation 64-RP — An industrial cleaner and disinfectant used by custodians firefighters and others.
White Linen Perfume — Created by Estée Lauder in 1978, marketed as “a beautiful perfume” for women young and old.
While these were the top 10 products, it is important to remember the team conducted tests on 140 personal care and cleaning products, the lowest of which, yellow soap, had 46 chemicals. Other cleaning products such as Kaboom with OxiClean Shower, Tub and Tile Cleaner had 229. Of the 25 personal care products tested, only three had less than 100 and none had less than 75.
Perfumes Tied to Chronic Disease
Are perfumes really the scent of danger? The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found the most popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays may contain trace amounts of natural essence, but they typically contain dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals. Some of the synthetic chemicals are derived from petroleum.
In an independent laboratory test, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics12 found 38 secret chemicals in 17 leading fragrances including top offenders from American Eagle, Coco Chanel, Britney Spears and Giorgio Armani. Following an analysis of the data, EWG commented:13
“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.”
Makers of these popular perfumes often use marketing terms such as “floral,” “exotic” or “musky” without disclosing the complex cocktail of synthetic chemicals used to create the scent.
The average fragrance product tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics contains 14 chemicals not listed on the label, among those associated with hormone disruption, allergic reactions and substances without safety testing.
Undisclosed ingredients also include chemicals that accumulate in the human tissue, such as diethyl phthalates, found in nearly 97% of Americans and linked to sperm damage.
Their report14 also found the FDA was similarly uninformed, as a review of government records revealed a vast majority of the chemicals used in fragrances were not assessed for safety when used in spray-on personal care products.
Phthalates Continue To Be Used in Personal Care Products
However, it isn’t only the undisclosed chemicals under the generic label “fragrance” that are cause for concern. Some chemicals listed included ultraviolet protector chemicals associated with hormone disruption and nearly 24 chemical sensitizers responsible for triggering allergic reactions.
Some manufacturing companies are moving toward restricting or eliminating certain chemicals from fragrances, such as phthalates.15 Although phthalates are only one chemical of concern in fragrances, this is a step in the right direction.
Findings from a multicenter study made a strong correlation between a mother’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and changes to the development in a baby boy’s genitals.
Another study at an infertility clinic demonstrated exposure was correlated to DNA damage in sperm and a third study in children aged 4 to 9 linked behavioral problems to higher maternal exposure to low molecular-weight phthalates.16
Adverse Event Reports on the Rise
While FDA regulation is weak at best, it is completely ineffective when adverse effects are not reported. The FDA has an adverse event reporting system containing information on product complaints submitted to the FDA. The database is designed to support safety surveillance programs and includes symptoms, product information and patient outcome.17
The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) adverse event reporting system was made publicly available in 2016.18 An analysis of events dated between 2004 and 2016, including voluntary submissions by consumers and health care professionals, showed over 5,000 events reported, at an average of 396 events per year.
However, the average number hides a growing trend. For instance, in 2015 there were 706 events reported and in 2016 there were over 1,500. The three most commonly reported products were hair care, skin care and tattoos. The authors of the report suggest more surveillance is needed, saying:19
“Unlike devices, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation to forward adverse events to the FDA; CFSAN reflects only a small portion of all events. The data suggests that consumers attribute a significant portion of serious health outcomes to cosmetics.”
The spike in adverse effects reported to the FDA in 2016 occurred only after the agency appealed to consumers and physicians to report events related to products manufactured by Chaz Dean Cleansing Conditioners under the brand name Wen.20
When adverse event complaints are made to a manufacturer they are not legally obligated to pass the reports to the FDA. Following an investigation, the FDA uncovered another 21,000 complaints made to Chaz Dean.21 It is highly likely adverse effects are commonly reported to the manufacturer and not to the FDA, indicating the total numbers in the CFSAN system are underreported.
Avoid These Toxic Chemicals in Your Personal Care Products
Despite over 21,000 consumer complaints to the contrary, Guthy-Renker, WEN’s marketing company, told NPR:22
“We welcome legislative and regulatory efforts to further enhance consumer safety across the cosmetic products industry. However, there is no credible evidence to support the false and misleading claim that WEN products cause hair loss.”
Until control improves over chemicals used in personal care products, safety testing and regulation protecting the consumer, it’s important you read the label on every personal care and cosmetic product you purchase. Here’s a list of some of the more hazardous chemicals found in many personal care products:23,24
Parabens — This chemical, found in deodorants, lotion, hair products and cosmetics, is a hormone disruptor mimicking the action of the female hormone estrogen, which can drive the growth of human breast tumors. A study published in 2012 found parabens from antiperspirants and other cosmetics appear to increase your risk of breast cancer.25
BHA and BHT — These chemicals are used as preservatives in makeup and moisturizers and are suspected endocrine disruptors.26
Synthetic colors — FD&C or D&C are the labels used to represent artificial colors. The letters are preceded by a color and number, such as D&C Red 27. The colors are derived from coal tar or petroleum sources and are suspected carcinogens. They are also linked to ADHD in children.
Fragrance — This is a large category of chemicals protected as proprietary information, and manufacturers do not have to release the chemical cocktails used to produce the scents in fabric sheets, perfumes, shampoos, body washes — anything having an ingredient called “fragrance.”
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives — While adding formaldehyde is banned as it is a known carcinogen, manufacturers have found other chemicals act as preservatives and release formaldehyde. Chemicals such as quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, methenamine and hydantoin are used in a variety of cosmetics and slowly release formaldehyde as they age.
Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate — These are surfactants found in more than 90% of cleaning products and personal care products to make the product foam. They are known to irritate your eyes, skin and lungs and may interact with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, a known carcinogen.
Toluene — Toluene is made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances and nail polish. Chronic exposure is linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus.
Triclosan — This antibacterial ingredient found in soaps and other products has been linked to allergies, endocrine disruption, weight gain and inflammatory responses, and may aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors.
Propylene glycol — This small organic alcohol is used as a skin conditioning agent and found in moisturizers, sunscreen, conditioners, shampoo and hairspray. It has also been added to medications to help your body absorb the chemicals more quickly and to electronic cigarettes. It is a skin irritant, is toxic to your liver and kidneys, and may produce neurological symptoms.27,28,29
Prevent Exposure by Making Your Own
Your skin is an excellent drug delivery system, so what goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth. Chemicals you ingest may be filtered through a health gut microbiome, a protection you don’t get when they are absorbed through your skin.
Consider preventing exposure by making many of your own personal care products at home and consulting the EWG Skin Deep searchable database30 to help you find personal care products free of potentially dangerous chemicals. Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients.
Seek out recipes to make your own homemade bath and handwashing products that don’t contain additional by-products and preservatives. For instance, coconut oil is a healthy skin moisturizer with natural antibacterial properties. Coconut oil may also be used as a leave in conditioner on your hair — be sure to start with very little.
Consider a 25% dilution of apple cider vinegar and water to wash your hair. Spritz your hair with the solution and leave it in for five minutes before thoroughly rinsing. You may have to tweak the dilution for your hair type as apple cider vinegar is a conditioning agent.
NZ has for many years sprayed glyphosateextensively over farmlands as recommended in NZ’s Ag text books. Farmers (Councils and just about everybody else) believe it is harmless. EWNZ
New research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health in the U.S. shows that childhood exposure to the world’s most widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.
The study of 480 mother-child duos from the Salinas Valley, California—a rich agricultural region that locals call “The World’s Salad bowl”—was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The researchers, led by Brenda Eskenazi, director of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health’s Center for Environmental Research and Community Health (CERCH), examined the agricultural use of glyphosate near the homes of the mothers during pregnancy and in the children up to age 5 years; and also measured glyphosate and AMPA, a degradation product of glyphosate and amino-polyphosphonates, in their urine (collected from mothers during pregnancy and from children at ages 5, 14, and 18 years). They assessed liver and metabolic health in the children when they were 18 years old.
The authors reported that higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood. In addition, the investigators found that agricultural glyphosate use near participants’ homes from birth and up through age five was associated with metabolic disorders at age 18. They reported that diet was likely a major source of glyphosate and AMPA exposure among study participants, as indicated by higher urinary glyphosate or AMPA concentrations among those adolescents who ate more cereal, fruits, vegetables, bread, and in general, carbohydrates.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Glyphosate is used routinely on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as oats, legumes and other produce. It is also present in many lawn care products for home and commercial use.
The debate over the impact of glyphosate and AMPA on human health has been contentious. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no evidence of human health risk. However, most previous glyphosate research has focused on glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. This is the first time that researchers have examined the potential connection between early life exposure to glyphosate—whose use has markedly increased over the past two decades—and metabolic and liver disease, both of which are increasing among children and young adults.
The impetus for this study came from Salinas physician Charles Limbach, who was alarmed by the growing number of local youths with liver and metabolic diseases. Dr. Limbach wondered if the increasing public exposure to glyphosate might be a factor. He teamed up with Paul J. Mills, a UC San Diego professor and author of a previous study showing an association between higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in adults and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The two men then approached Professor Eskenazi, who is also the founder of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), the longest running longitudinal birth cohort investigation on the health effects of pesticides and other environmental exposures among children in a farmworker community. The CHAMACOS researchers reached back into their “library” of frozen biological samples from mother and child dyads, along with more than 20 years of exposure data and health records.
“The study’s implications are troubling,” said Dr. Ana Maria Mora, a CERCH investigator and coauthor, “as the levels of the chemicals found in our study participants are within the range reported for the general U.S. population.”
Professor Eskenazi recommends that the use of glyphosate should be limited to essential use while further studies are conducted. “There’s no reason why anyone should be using glyphosate on their lawn,” she said. “It shouldn’t be sold over the counter in a nursery.”
The study published in Environmental Health Perspectives was funded by NIH, NIEHS, NIDA, and the EPA. Additional support came from The Solomon Dutka Fund in the New York Community Trust and The Westreich Foundation.
A Must-Read The following press release from US-based Fluoride Action Network’s science advisor spells out the details of the National Toxicology Program’s Draft Monograph and Meta-analysis.
Lead Industry’s Denial Tactics Now Used by Dental InterestsBy: Chris Neurath, FAN Science Director
Highlights:
• Similar loss of IQ from fluoride as from lead • IQ loss seen at doses from fluoridated water • Same industry denials, personal attacks on scientists • Industry tactic: blaming the victim • Fluoride is the new lead, but worse
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) report on the neurotoxicity of fluoride confirms what experts have long been suggesting: that fluoride is the new lead in its ability to lower IQ in children. Over the past five years, experts in toxicology and epidemiology have equated the harm to developing brains from fluoride to that from lead.
With some areas experiencing a lot of rain lately it is a good time to look at how to prevent damage and losses in your gardens.
There is a range of plants we call bog plants and they just love living in wet soil and even in water which makes many of them suitable to use in aquariums for your fish to enjoy.
But even in an aquarium oxygen is needed so we place an air stone connected to an air pump to bubble away under water and aerate the water.
If we did not do this the oxygen in the water would be used up and then the fish would suffocate and likely even the plants would die as the water became stagnant.
By the way if you want to remove the chlorine from a bucket of chlorinated water simply put an air stone connected to an air pump and let it bubble away and within about 12 hours or less the water will be free of the poisonous chlorine.
Very wet soil loses the oxygen and that becomes deadly for the roots of plants.
Some plants are fairly hardy against wet feet where others soon have root rot happen and when enough roots are damaged the plant dies.
It does not matter if some of the roots are in very wet soil or water as long as there are more roots that are above the wet area.
I can give a good example of this as one place I lived in years ago would be a lake of water in the back section during wet winters.
Many attempts of growing ornamentals were hopeless so I planted a twisted willow in the corner which was the wettest area and it very quickly grew.
Then I also planted a couple of cabbage trees both of which took off and as these and the willow grew they helped greatly in taking up the surface water.
After a season I was able to plant a few other native plants that were able to survive as the area was less wet.
My citrus were a problem so I cut some 200 litre drums in half, drilled some large 4-5cm holes in the sides about 10cm above the base.
This meant in dry times there would be a nice reservoir of water to keep the citrus happy.
I then dug a hole so the bottom third of the drum would be buried in the surrounding soil.
This made them stable in windy times when the citrus gained some height.
It also allowed the roots later on to venture out of the drum and into the surrounding soil.
The result of this was that in the middle of winter when the back yard was a a lake of water the citrus were happy as Larry.
When I came to move to another place I lifted the drums (with a lot of effort) and was surprised at the large roots that had grown out of the holes on the sides.
As a good part of the root system was above water the citrus was not affected by wet feet.
The alternative to this would have been to make mounds about half a metre tall and plant citrus trees in these.
Years later after another move to where we are now in Marton the same citrus trees are happily living in the same drums sitting either on soil in the lawn or on concrete.
Of course every few years I need to take them out of the containers and root prune them.
That would not be needed if you had the roots venturing out into surrounding soil.
The very worst thing that you can have in wet winters is any type of mulch around any plants that don’t like wet feet.
Mulches are great in dry summers to conserve soil moisture but deadly in winter as the soil can not breathe and too much wetness is retained.
I remember a few years ago having a phone call from a lady who wanted to know why her very expensive ornamental trees were dying.
She planted then in the spring and in summer she had a pile of old carpet after re-carpeting the home.
So she put that on the soil under her precious ornamentals to suppress weeds and retain moisture.
Worked a treat till the wet times came and the soil became saturated and the expensive plants started to die.
I told her that she had to quickly do two things which was firstly remove the carpets and then spray the foliage with Wallys PerKfection at the high rate 9 mils per litre of water and then at 4mils per litre a month later and repeat once a month till into spring making a total of 6, once a month sprays.
Perkfection assists in recovery from/or prevention of, the following problems, Black spot, Downy Mildew, Phytophthora Root rot, Canker, heart rot, damping off, crown rot, leaf blight, silver leaf, late blight, collar rot, pink rot, brown rot, Armillaria, and gummy stem rot.
It is magic on Buxus for the dreaded Buxus disease that kills the plants.
It has brought back Buxus from near dead to their formal glory and after which I would suggest a maintenance spray bi-monthly at 5 mils per litre of water.
Perkfection is systemic so you dont need full coverage of foliage just a good amount of it.
Another way of improving drainage is like we used to do in days gone by when gardeners would in winter dig their vegetable garden over, mounding up the clods as they went leaving a ditch around the garden about one and a half spade deep.
They would then sprinkle garden lime over the clods for the frosts to take in and break the clods down.
In spring when it was time to plant, the clods would break up into a fine tilth with little effort using a rake.
Now days we dont dig but the idea of a trench around the garden or around a citrus tree just about 12 cm out from the drip line is very practical.
This allows excess water to drain into the ditch were sunlight and wind will evaporate it quickly.
An interesting thing happens sometimes where a water sensitive plant like a citrus, years old suddenly one season shows signs of wet feet.
The reason is often a result of a change of direction with surface water flows which maybe caused by some construction or even a new concrete path or driveway.
The previous flow place is changed to where the citrus is growing and the soil is much wetter than previously.
Remember to frost protect sensitive plants with spray on frost protection, Vaporgard.
I read an interesting article on the Net which you may also find interesting; whether its true or not is up to you to determine.
This weeks special is Perkfection 250ml bottle $18.00 or a 1litre container $38.00 free shipping on either size, no discount on either size. Shipping to your home no PO Boxes or outer Islands like Stewart or Waiheke
Offer ends next Sunday.
Problems ring me at 0800 466464 Email wallyjr@gardenews.co.nz Web site www.gardenews.co.nz
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
Biden Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk highlighted the absurdity of the climate grift this week during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) couldn’t get a straight answer out of him over the cost of going ‘carbon neutral.’
In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration’s goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.
When Kennedy asked whether some of the “experts” Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said “It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.”
“f we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)
Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”
Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”
Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…”
Kennedy: “Let me ask you. Maybe I’m not being clear. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?”
Turk: “This is a global problem, so we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything to, uh…”
Kennedy: “How much of we do our part is it going to reduce global temperatures?”
Turk: “So, we’re 13% of global emissions…”
Kennedy: “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”
A fully flabbergasted Turk then says “In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.”
Asenergy expert David Blackmon writes in the Daily Caller;
And there we have it. Americans are being asked to accept the force-feeding of an incredibly radical set of policies with a price tag that is unprecedented in global history to achieve a “carbon neutrality” goal, whose benefits are so nebulous, negligible and wholly reliant on the cooperative actions of other countries beyond U.S. control that they cannot be measured in any reliable way.
Instead, we are being told by senior political appointees forcing those policies into being that we should simply trust them because they think it is the right thing to do in their “heart of hearts.”
This is madness. For some context, $50 trillion is an amount that exceeds the gross domestic product of the U.S., China, India, Germany and Japan, combined. It is a number that drastically exceeds total U.S. national debt. It is more than 135 times the $369 billion in green energy subsidies contained in last year’s Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
That is five new IRAs each year for the next 27 years. Madness.
As I type, NZ is warning of yet another orange rain warning for Hawke’s Bay.
The WEF recently cited Hawke’s Bay (with all that recent flooding) for ‘managed retreat’ a new fancy name for relocating you, a name that as always with the globalists, is designed to keep your eyes off their real intent. Into the (not) ‘Smart Cities’ you go. We must ‘build back better’. Yeah right.
Have you cottoned on yet? It’s sustainable development for us (electric vehicles, eating bugs and so on) … whilst they continue to fly to Davos in private jets. No bugs on their menus. Charles takes his own food, organic at that. All that talk about owning nothing is for us not them.
This all is why they have been working to shut down small rural communities for decades. I watched it first hand. It is why roads are in a state of continual disrepair. Plans for the East Coast have been percolating for quite a long time.
The aggressive use of weather modification technology continues. Be prepared. A storm front is heading for New Zealand and as Robert Deutsch shows in the first few minutes of this video, it appears to be a cyclonic system that was steered in our direction using massive beams of electromagnetic radiation and a multitude of atmospheric aerosols deployments.
In this video, Deutsch is again asking for Kiwis to use litmus paper to test their rainwater and advise him of their results. When doing this, bear in mind that while pure distilled water has a pH of 7.0, which is ‘neutral’, unpolluted rainwater…
Today, using satellite imagery of water vapour, WeatherWatchTV‘s meteorologist, Philip Duncan, pointed to the center of the low pressure system over the Tasman Sea, which is approaching New Zealand. While it clearly has an angular appearance, as the screenshot below shows, Duncan remained tight-lipped about it. This phenomenon can not be explained away as a ‘natural’ or a ‘normal’ occurrence and is probably evidence of strategic manipulation using weather modification technology.
See the report here:
Possibly related:
Former Chief Meteorologist at KTKA-TV, Scott Stevens, of the now archived website Weatherwars.Info, wrote of the appearance of clouds with straight lines in 2004:“The oddest clouds, the most altered clouds, are found under the westerlies-the steering currents that drive our weather at these latitudes.” Look at the archived Weatherwars.Info at the WaybackMachine for more examples of strange clouds in conjunction with an interpretation of what is occurring, from a…
On Tuesday, 2nd May, the Natural Health Alliance hosted a public meeting to discuss and inform the public about the Therapeutic Products Bill and what it means for consumers, health professionals, importers, and manufacturers of natural health products.
Our access to knowledge about traditional remedies and food as medicine and having health choices, including control over what we put in our bodies, are fundamental human rights. This Bill threatens rights that most people agree are fundamental freedoms, yet for some incomprehensible reason, mainstream media is trying to make people like me sound like anti-vaxxer kooks.
his issue has nothing to do with being anti or pro-vaccine: it is about being pro-health and pro-choice – nothing more and nothing less.
Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and Beth Ellikidis, vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), argue for the genetic engineering of food. Both are connected to Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods
BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization, represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries. BIO claims genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it lobbies 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, and health care policy
In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH), a nonprofit organization that “develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development for poverty-related diseases.” BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI), which develops biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries
BIO is partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola
In an April 17, 2023, opinion piece in STAT News,1 Dr. Peter Lurie and Beth Ellikidis argue for the genetic engineering of food, claiming “newer technologies can make highly targeted changes at the base-pair level — one specific rung on the DNA ladder — enhancing precision and reducing the likelihood of ‘off-target effects’ in which the base pairs are unintentionally added to or deleted from the genome.”
While targeted genetic engineering is indeed possible, and modern technology lowers the likelihood of unintentional additions or deletions, this precision does not guarantee there won’t be adverse effects. One of the reasons for this is because many genes are multifunctional and can have multiple downstream effects.2,3
By altering a single gene, you can inadvertently affect the expression of hundreds of others. What’s more, the multifunctionality of genes is rarely intuitive. So, while it may seem convenient to genetically engineer cows without horns to prevent injury to other cows and farmhands, as suggested by Lurie and Ellikidis, there’s no telling what that tweak might do to internal organs or biological pathways.
In turn, there’s no guarantee that cascading effects will not alter the nutrition of the meat or dairy that comes from that cow. Maybe it’ll be fine, maybe it won’t. The problem is that, oftentimes with genetically engineered foods, safety testing is minimal or absent.
Who Do Lurie and Ellikidis Answer To?
When assessing the trustworthiness of people, it can be worthwhile to look at their funding and various partnerships. In the case of Lurie and Ellikidis, both are in league with Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods.
Lurie — a former FDA associate commissioner — is the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). In the summer of 2020, Lurie launched a comprehensive campaign to put Mercola.com out of business by sending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission after us based on bogus charges.
CSPI is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies and other billionaire-owned foundations. It’s also partnered with the Cornell Alliance for Science, a “global communications initiative” whose primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Greg Jaffe, who heads up CSPI’s Biotechnology Project, is also the associate director of legal affairs at Alliance for Science.
Considering those ties, the CSPI’s long history of promoting industry science and propaganda is not surprising in the least. They supported artificial sweeteners, trans fats, GMOs, fake meat and the low-fat myth. They’ve also actively undermined transparency in labeling efforts.
Ellikidis, meanwhile, is the vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). She’s leading the “policy and market access strategies for BIO’s Agriculture and Environment section, which includes member companies developing and producing breakthrough technologies in food and agriculture.”4
BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization,5,6 represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries, as well as industry groups, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and other related organizations.
According to BIO, genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it has lobbying committees dedicated to influencing 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, health care policy, technology transfer and finance.
According to Open Secrets,7 BIO spent $13,250,000 on “pharmaceutical and health products” lobbying in 2022. For reference, only Pfizer and the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent more.8
How Gates Sets Himself Up for Success
In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH),9 a nonprofit organization that “strategically develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development (R&D) for poverty-related diseases.”
BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.10 In 2005, the BVGH received another $5.4 million to expand the biotech industry’s role in the fight against neglected diseases.11 The Rockefeller Foundation is also funding the group.
Fast-forward to 2018, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI).12 Gates MRI, funded with a $273 million, four-year grant from the Gates Foundation, is focused on developing biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries.13
It’s a convenient setup to say the least. On the one hand, Gates is funding the R&D of biotech products through Gates MRI, and on the other, he’s funding the acceleration, coordination and management of private-public biotech programs through BVGH.
One key area where the BVGH is being inserted to manage private-public programs is the “Cancer Moonshot” program, launched in 2016 by then-Vice President Joe Biden. Biden “reignited” and highlighted the program in 2022.14 As reported in a White House fact sheet:15
“Working with African Access Initiative (AAI) partners, BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH) will implement cancer research projects that are determined and led by African oncologists and conducted in collaboration with U.S. cancer experts.
Through its African Consortium for Cancer Clinical Trials (AC3T) program, BVGH will facilitate five research projects, build capacity to conduct rigorous clinical research at 50 African sites, promote African primary investigator’s research interests on the AC3T platform, and coordinate the implementation of observational clinical studies.
In addition to building AC3T sites’ research capacity, BVGH will map the regulatory pathway in five AAI countries. All clinical studies involving cancer drugs will include development of market access pathways by BVGH.”
Gates MRI, in turn, intends to “apply new understanding of the human immune system learned from cancer research to prevent infectious disease.”16 Conveniently, he’s got the inside track to all of that through the BVGH.
As it so happens, BIO is also partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD),17 and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola.18,19,20,21
Not surprisingly, the DOD is also seeking to develop and adopt more mRNA-based therapeutics against other emerging biological threats22 — products that can be manufactured and deployed quickly.
One of the obvious hazards of public-private partnerships becoming more and more intertwined, as we see now, is that the government becomes less and less inclined to ensure the safety of these co-developed, co-owned products.
In a June 2022 BIO webinar, Ian Watson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical and biological defense, specified that the agency will “safeguard” its industrial partners from various threats, including “foreign economic aggression and inherent marketplace vulnerability that are specific to biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals.”23
Does “market vulnerability” also include legal action by people injured by biopharmaceuticals that have been brought to market at warp speed? Judging by what we’ve seen during the COVID pandemic, it sure seems the U.S. government is doing everything it can to hide and suppress evidence of harm, so why would we expect any different in the future?
Are Foods Being Turned Into Bioweapons?
Getting back to the issue of food, just as medicine is being hijacked by the biotech industry, so is our food supply. Indeed, President Biden recently signed an executive order that makes biotechnology a key focus of every federal agency, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture.24
The transhumanist agenda is clear for everyone to see, and it’s being pushed on us from every angle, through food, medicine and national security. It recently came to light that the swine industry in the U.S. and Canada has been using customizable mRNA “vaccines” on herds since 2018,25 and to this day, there’s no research to prove the meat is safe for consumption in the long term and won’t affect the genetics of those who eat it.
Based on our experiences with the mRNA COVID shots, which more and more experts are starting to refer to as bioweapons, it’s not farfetched to wonder whether the use of mRNA in livestock might be a form of biowarfare against the public as well, this time through the food supply.
As reported by Dr. Peter McCullough,26 Chinese researchers have demonstrated that food can indeed be turned into a vaccine (or a bioweapon, depending on the antigen):27
“The nation’s food supply can be manipulated by public health agencies to influence population outcomes … Now an oral route of administration is being considered specifically for COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA in cow’s milk.
Zhang and colleagues have demonstrated that a shortened mRNA code of 675 base pairs could be loaded into phospholipid packets called exosomes derived from milk and then using that same milk, be fed to mice.
The mice gastrointestinal tract absorbed the exosomes and the mRNA must have made it into the blood stream and lymphatic tissue because antibodies were produced in fed mice against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (receptor binding domain) …
[G]iven the damage mRNA vaccines have generated in terms of injuries, disabilities, and deaths, these data raise considerable ethical issues. The COVID States project has shown that 25% of Americans were successful in remaining unvaccinated. This group would have strong objections to mRNA in the food supply, particularly if it was done surreptitiously or with minimal labelling/warnings …
These observations lead me to conclude that mRNA technology has just entered a whole new, much darker phase of development. Expect more research on and resistance to mRNA in our food supply. The Chinese have just taken the first of what will probably be many more dangerous steps for the world.”
Say No to mRNA in Your Food
Moving forward, it’s going to be extremely important to stay on top of what’s happening to our food supply. Many of us were surprised to realize mRNA shots have been used in swine for several years already. Soon, cattle may get these customizable mRNA shots as well, which could affect both beef and dairy products.
For now, I strongly recommend avoiding pork products. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding these untested mRNA “vaccines,” pork is also very high in linoleic acid, a harmful omega-6 fat that drives chronic disease. Hopefully, cattle ranchers will realize the danger this mRNA platform poses to their bottom-line and reject it. If they don’t, finding beef and dairy that has not been “gene therapied” could become quite the challenge.
Ultimately, if we want to be free, and if we want food safety and food security, we must focus our efforts on building a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.
Legislative efforts are also needed. Bills that would be helpful in steering us in the right direction include the following:
• The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act28— This bill was introduced in 2017 and hasn’t moved since its introduction in the House. The PRIME Act would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.
Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they’re banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.
• The Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 202129— This bill was introduced at the end of July 2021 as an amendment to the 2018 Farm bill.
• Missouri House Bill 1169,30 which would require labeling of products, including food, that might “impact, alter or introduce genetic material or a genetic change” into the consumer.
Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.
To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:
Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts
How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.
There is a saying which reads as… As Above So Below and with plants and trees what is above the soil level is replicated to what is below the soil level.
With a tree it is the trunk and branches we see and mirrored under the soil is the tap root and the root system about a similar size as above.
It is the root system and the medium that the roots are in that is the focus of this article.
We often refer to ‘The Soil Life’ which is a teeming mass of microbes, fungi, and soil insects including earth worms that we find in a healthy soil or the growing medium.
Virgin soil with its canopy of plants, living naturally for hundreds of years has a wealth of soil life and to have a soil like that is the goal of every keen gardener as it will, with very little effort, produce great healthy plants.
A vital part of the soil life are the fungi family called Mycorrhizae.
From the internet we see: A mycorrhizal network (also known as a common mycorrhizal network or CMN) is an underground network found in forests and other plant communities, created by the hyphae of mycorrhizalfungi joining with plant roots.
This network connects individual plants together and transfers water, carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients and minerals between participants.
Several studies have demonstrated that mycorrhizal networks can transport carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, water, defense compounds, and allelochemicals from plant to plant.
The flux of nutrients and water through hyphal networks has been proposed to be driven by a source-sink model where plants growing under conditions of relatively high resource availability (
such as high-light or high-nitrogen environments) transfer carbon or nutrients to plants located in less favorable conditions. (Helping their mates)
A common example is the transfer of carbon from plants with leaves located in high-light conditions in the forest canopy, to plants located in the shaded understory where light availability limits photosynthesis.
In natural ecosystems, plants may be dependent on fungal symbionts for 90% of their phosphorus requirements and 80% of their nitrogen requirements.
Mycorrhizal relationships are most commonly mutualistic, with both partners benefiting, but can be commensal or parasitic, and a single partnership may change between any of the three types of symbiosis at different times.
These networks have existed for over 400 million years, with up to 90% of all land plants participating.
The formation and nature of these networks, is context-dependent, and can be influenced by factors such as soil fertility, resource availability, host or mycosymbiont genotype, disturbance and seasonal variation.
Some plant species, such as buckhorn plantain, a common lawn and agricultural weed, benefit from mycorrhizal relationships in conditions of low soil fertility, but are harmed in higher soil fertility.
Both plants and fungi associate with multiple symbiotic partners at once, and both plants and fungi are capable of preferentially allocating resources to one partner over another. End.
Back to me: You can see from the above what a incredible resource Mycorrhizal fungi is to the well being of your plants and garden and why you should encourage it and not damage it.
The No-Dig garden that we have often talked about over the years is ideal for building and maintaining these beneficial fungi.(Instead of digging your garden you simply put fresh compost over the soil with other natural manures and plant into this new layer.
This is repeated for every crop)
Mycorrhizal fungi can increase a plant’s roots catchment area by up to 800%.
The bigger the root zone the bigger and better the plants.
We can encourage Mycorrhizal fungi to grow by drenching the soil with Wallys Mycorrcin every so often like once a month around preferred plants and crops.
What we should not do is to use chemicals that will kill the Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial microbes in the soil. Chemical sprays and man-made chemical fertilisers that leach into the soil and the worst one is your chlorinated tap water you use to water the garden with.
Gardeners that have filtered the chlorine out of their garden watering remark on what a difference it makes to the health of their gardens and plants.
The chlorine is added to water to kill bacteria and it is caustic in nature which is not good for soil life.
We see that Mycorrhizal fungi connects plants underground through their roots and by that means can send messages to each other.
An example of this is a forest stand where the outer trees are attacked by a disease or insect pests and the trees send out a message to the fellow trees about what is happening which then allows the other trees to start building their defense systems against possible attack.
Some plants are very hard to establish and the answer to this I learnt many years ago is that you find a mature specimen of the plant you wish to cultivate and you take some of the soil from the mature specimen root zone and you place that in the planting hole of your specimen.
Plant up and then drench the soil with Wallys Mycorrcin to aid growth and that impossible plant to grow is away laughing.
Introduction of beneficial microbes to the soil is another way of improving your gardens and plants health.
Biologically active soils have the ability to retain moisture and release nutrients ensuring greater production, faster rotation and more rapid recovery from stress.
To build a healthy biological soil we need products that can feed living organisms.
Increasing public awareness of the environmental impact of using chemical-based fertiliser has created a demand for a safe, natural and environmentally friendly fertiliser.
Biological fertilisers increase nutrient availability and feed important soil organisms, such as earthworms and microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) – all essential for plant and soil health.
The product we have called Bio Marinus not only does the above but also introduces new beneficial microbes to your gardens.
Readers may recall the British comedian Kenneth Horne’s radio show “Beyond Our Ken” featured a gardener called Arthur Fallowfield, played by Kenneth Williams.
He often said “The Answer Lays in the Soil”.
THIS WEEKS Special is Mycorrcin is either 250mils, 500 mils or 1litre and till next Sunday we will pay the shipping to your home (No PO Boxes or outer Islands)
No discounts on the product sizes so 250mils is $18.00; 500 mils $30.00 and 1 litre is $50 free shipping on one or more of the same product.
After receiving your order I will phone you to sort out payment either by credit card over the phone or a bank transfer..
Phone 0800 466464 Garden Pages and News at www.gardenews.co.nz Shar Pei pages at www.sharpei.co.nz Mail Order products at www.0800466464.co.nz New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
Government use of 1080 poison in New Zealand is controversial and seems to command the headlines ahead of other poisons.
But there is a much worse poison – it is called brodifacoum.
Brodifacoum is widely used by regional councils and government agencies such as the Department of Conservation. Typical of its widespread use is Ulva Island near Stewart Island where the Department of Conservation is currently undertaking rodent eradication.
I have come across brodifacoum poisoning notices in the central North Island when trout fishing, accompanied by my Labrador dog. In one case I asked a farmer why the regional council was using brodifacoum for possums. He didn’t know and added that possum numbers were very light anyhow.
Because of the extreme danger to my dog, I didn’t go fishing. Besides, trout fishing a river into whichever toxic baits will have fallen or on the banks, doesn’t make for an enjoyable day’s fishing!
Such cavalier attitude of regional councils – and the Department of Conservation – belies the lethal nature of brodifacoum.
Comparison
How does it compare to 1080?
Both poisons have a ”withholding period” which means a time must elapse after the toxin’s use before stock can be safely grazed or game animals such as deer, taken for home consumption.
The Ministry of Primary Industries stipulates 4 months for 1080 poison. For brodifacoum it is 3 years i.e. 36 months after poisoning.
The extensive withholding time for brodifacoum is due to its known long-term persistence in the environment and animal bodies.
Brodifacoum warning notices by a King Country trout stream – photo Tony Orman
What is brodifacoum?
Brodifacoum is an anticoagulant, which causes the animal to die slowly and painfully from internal bleeding. As cruel as death over two or three days is by 1080, by brodifacoum it is far more prolonged, in the case of rats within 4 to 8 days and larger animals such as possums, up to 21 days.
1080 requires a user to have a licence to use the toxin but no licence is needed for brodifacoum, for example rat poison sold over shop counters, to anyone, young or adult with no controls whatsoever.
Secondary Poisoning
Brodifacoum and 1080 have another similarity, called “secondary poisoning”. In other words a dead poisoned animal remains toxic and any bird or other creature scavenging the dead body, takes in poison and dies.
Scientists C.T. Eason and E.B. Spurr in 1995 in a study “The Toxicity and Sub-lethal Effects of Brodifacoum said insectivorous birds (e.g. bush robins, fantails) are likely to be exposed to brodifacoum by eating invertebrates that have fed on toxic baits; i.e., they are likely to be at risk from secondary poisoning. Predatory birds (especially the Australasian harrier, New Zealand falcon, and morepork) might also be at risk from secondary poisoning by eating birds, small mammals, or invertebrates that have fed on toxic baits.
Predators are greatly at risk. Both poisons are very slow to kill, and especially so with brodifacoum. An animal be mouse, bird or insect, on taking the poison, slowly dies and in its distressed, weakening state, naturally and quickly attracts the attention of predators among them native birds such as bush falcons, hawks, moreporks, pukekos and wekas.
Bush robins are at risk from brodifacoum – photo Tony Orman
Ecological history is littered with instances following poisoning. For example scientists Eason and Spurr said the “entire weka population on Tawhitinui Island, Pelorus Sound, Marlborough Sounds was exterminated mainly by direct consumption of rat bait (Talon) intended for ship rat control.”
The two scientists said “indigenous New Zealand vertebrates most at risk from feeding directly on cereal-based baits containing brodifacoum are those species that are naturally inquisitive and have an omnivorous diet (birds such as weka, kaka, kea, and robins). The greatest risk of secondary poisoning is to predatory and scavenging birds (especially the Australasian harrier, New Zealand falcon, southern black-backed gull, morepork, and weka)”
The duo added “the risk from brodifacoum will be at its greatest when saturation baiting techniques, such as aerial sowing, are used in eradication programmes.” Such as Ulva Island where DoC is “aerially sowing” brodifacoum.
Seven years later in 2002, Spurr and Eason along with two other scientists produced a study “Assessment of risks of brodifacoum to non-target birds and mammals in New Zealand”.
The quartet of scientists described brodifacoum as “highly toxic to birds and mammals” and listed victims such as the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) and morepork (Ninox novaeseelandiae), other native birds such as the pukeko (Porphyrio melanomas), weka (Gallirallus australis), southern black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus), and kiwi (Apteryx spp.) and introduced mammals, including game animals e.g. deer.
Dead Dotterels
Other studies have identified the lethal nature of brodifacoum.
Landcare Research scientist Penny Fisher said “because brodifacoum persists in the environment, other birds may suffer secondary poisoning from eating animals that have ingested poison” and cited “a high mortality of New Zealand dotterels following an aerial brodifacoum operation at Tawharanui Regional Park in North Auckland, in 2004. At least 50% of the dotterels in the area at time of operation disappeared or were found dead. Sand-hoppers-common food item of NZ dotterels —ate baits and accumulated brodifacoum and provided a potential route for transmission of the toxin to dotterels.”
Two dead eels found in a Southland waterway had brodifacoum in the gut contents of one and that “suggests the eel had recently ingested food containing brodifacoum, probably through scavenging the carcass of a poisoned possum.”
Freshwater Residues
Brodifacoum similar to 1080, leaves residues.
In 2005 a paper in the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Volume 39, told of freshwater crayfish (koura) with significant 1080 concentrations and 1080 residues in eel tissue that were on average 12 times higher than the PMAV (provisional maximum acceptable level).
The INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY Health and Safety Guide No. 93 said of brodifacoum “as a technical material — is highly toxic for fish”.
Processing poisons for wild animal control/eradication is Orillion a State Owned Enterprise governed through a Board of Directors appointed by the New Zealand Government. Orillion’s safety data sheet for brodifacoum says “may cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.”
Therein lies a threat to not only valued sports fishes such as trout and juvenile salmon migrating downstream to sea, but also native fish such as eels and galaxids.
Sodium fluoroacetate, also known as compound 1080, is the poison around which controversy swirls. Brodifacoum is little known but is surreptitiously used by the Department of Conservation and councils.
1080 is ecologically destructive and damaging to the ecosystem – but brodifacoum is far worse.
Footnote: Environmentalist Tony Orman has spent a lifetime in the outdoors and has had some two dozen books published among them “New Zealand the Beautiful Wilderness”
Secret Talks to Allow GE Seeds Without Regulation Threatens NZ Farmers
Canadian Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has approved the adoption of Gene Edited (GE) seeds without any regulation, health or safety assessments, traceability or liability and only voluntary disclosure. The deregulation of GE seeds includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, Argentina and Brazil, as cited by National Newswatch Canada. [1]
The article indicates that the New Zealand Government has been in closed door talks to “progress allowing GE seeds to be imported and sold in New Zealand, the UK and the European Union”.
“GE Free NZ has written to the Minister to clarify if this statement is correct,” said Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ. “If this is true, the Government has breached its “duty of care” and opened up dangerous economic and safety issues that GE regulation protects, through these secret talks.”
The agreement threatens to destroy the important point of difference that has benefited our economy and exports from Aotearoa New Zealand to the world based on our world-leading standards for clean, safe, natural, GE Free and organic food.
Gene Editing has been around for only 10 years. The GE seeds have not undergone any long term environmental or health safety testing, even though laboratory studies have shown deleterious mutations and altered gene function called “off target effects”. [2]
This is a direct threat to New Zealand exporters who sell their products as non-GMO.
“This is killing the goose that lays the golden egg for New Zealand exports,” said Jon Carapiet, spokesman for GE Free NZ.
Consumers want certainty around food safety and the choice to avoid the unknown environmental and health effects of GE. New Zealand exporters can guarantee that all products are GE Free and and underpins our economic wellbeing.
Un regulated, Untested and unlabelled novel GE products betrays consumers at home and abroad and destroys the integrity of the food system to produce organic and GMO-free food.
This adds to concerns of excess pesticides in the environment and in foods that negatively impact people and natural ecosystems.
The Government must be called to account as to why they have led secret talks into the deregulation and release of GE without public consultation.
Clean Green NZ of course loves glyphosate. A well used Ag text book called Pasture Doctor advocates spraying the fields which stock will graze on. Try and tell NZ farmers it’s a likely carcinogen (as close as the authorities will get to describing it as dangerous) … they don’t want to know. Read our Glyphosate pages and articles, particularly the work of Prof Séralini. EWNZ
It’s been a little over five years since I last visited Brussels, Belgium as an invited guest of the European Parliament to testify about my 20 years of researching and reporting on the world’s most widely used herbicide – glyphosate. The chemical is best known as the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
The Parliament subsequently voted to ban glyphosate, and the European Commission only narrowly missed confirming that sentiment when Germany’s agriculture minister contradicted German leadership by casting the deciding vote that kept glyphosate on the market. (A few months later German-based Bayer bought Monsanto. Just a coincidence, right?)
But the renewal came with a caveat – the license would be reviewed again after five years, and that is where the European Union sits now, once again locked into a debate over both the safety of glyphosate and what the agricultural industry says is the necessity of glyphosate.
So here I am again – back in Brussels as a new vote looms later this year. The battle lines are drawn as they always seem to be: independent scientists, health advocates and environmentalists are advocating for a ban based on evidence the chemical can cause cancer and other health problems, while the chemical companies that profit from glyphosate sales and industry-backed farm groups are pushing for continued uninterrupted use, saying the concerns lack valid science and that glyphosate is essential to agriculture.
I was fortunate to be invited back to Brussels as part of a group associated with a new, award-winning documentary film called Into the Weeds, which presents many of the grim details laid out in my two books (Whitewash and The Monsanto Papers). The saga is one of corrupted regulators that favor corporate science over independent research; the overwhelming amount of independent scientific evidence tying glyphosate to myriad health and environmental harms; and the devastation wrought on countless human lives. (Disclosure: Filmmaker Jennifer Baichwal bought the documentary rights to the books and lists me in credits as “story consultant.”)
The film screened Wednesday evening in Brussels to a packed house; earlier our group spent time at the European Parliament, the EU’s lawmaking body.
In an address opening the film, Anja Hazekamp, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who supports a glyphosate ban, said the next months will be “crucial.” She called on the European Commission to “finally start protecting humans, animals and the environment.”
“Despite all the evidence that glyphosate is a threat for the health of animals, humans and the environment, the European Commission keeps reauthorizing this terrible pesticide,” Hazekamp said. “At the end of this year the European Commission will finally make a long-term decision on glyphosate, and it is therefore of paramount importance that the facts presented in this documentary are finally taken on board by the European Commission and the other policy makers.”
Accompanying the film to Brussels was scientist Chris Portier, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a former director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences where he served as director of the Environmental Toxicology Program.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Portier participated as an expert during the World’s Health Organization’s cancer agency review of glyphosate in 2015 that classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.
In Brussels he told attendees to the film screening how regulators repeatedly have bent the rules to ignore or twist scientific findings in ways that allow them to keep glyphosate on the market. He reiterated what he has said countless times – that extensive scientific evidence ties the chemical to cancer. Portier has been an expert witness for plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits against Monsanto brought by people alleging they developed cancer due to Roundup exposure.
More than a cancer concern
Also speaking in Brussels as part of the group supporting the film was scientist Daniele Mandrioli, coordinator of research on glyphosate at the Ramazzini Institute of Bologna, Italy.
Mandrioli said new research results show various harmful health effects from glyphosate exposure at levels currently considered to be safe by European standards.
Mandrioli told members of the European Parliament that the ongoing “Global Glyphosate Study” has recently confirmed in humans prior alarming findings found in animals – that glyphosate can have disruptive effects on sexual development in newborns. Among the observations were disruptions to the endocrine system, including increased testosterone levels in females exposed to glyphosate. The researchers found an “elongation of anogenital distance, which anticipates different potential problems” correlated with hormone imbalance in newborns that could impair development, Mandrioli said.
As well, glyphosate exposure at doses considered safe trigger alterations in the microbiome, impacting beneficial gut bacteria and fungi at doses considered safe.
“When disrupted, many metabolic conditions, many diseases, have been connected with these alterations,” Mandrioli said in a press conference before meetings at Parliament. The evidence is “solid,” he said.
“We are providing evidence for the all the global population,” he said.
Also in Brussels with our group was Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the California groundskeeper who sprayed large quantities of RangerPro, a highly concentrated version of Roundup, and who became the first plaintiff to win a court case alleging the glyphosate-based products cause cancer. I chronicle Johnson’s battles – against cancer and against Monsanto – in my second book, and his story is featured in the new film.
Johnson shared his experiences with Parliament members and in a panel discussion after the film, urging action to protect people from having to endure the injustice that comes with cancers that could be prevented.
It is a miracle of modern medicine that Johnson, the father of two teenage sons, is still alive. Before the 2018 trial against Monsanto, doctors told him he would certainly be dead within 18 months. When I first met him several years ago, he was in near-constant agony as cancerous lesions covered his entire body, and even the slightest movement of clothing across his fragile skin burned like fire. He told me then that he was determined to outlive his dire diagnosis, and so far, through a combination of regular radiation and chemo treatments, Johnson has thwarted death just as he thwarted Monsanto’s efforts to beat his argument that exposure to the company’s weed killer caused his disease.
Still, he has lost too many days and nights – years – struggling through immense pain and fear, and with the knowledge that his family lives with the fact that they could lose him all too soon. His story is heart-breaking, noted by the tears shed in the audience at the screening Wednesday night.
But he is only one of too many who have suffered and continue to suffer.
In the months ahead, Europe has a chance to change that.
A look inside what is happening with digitized books and who can access them. There’s clearly more to the quiet disappearance of hard copies than meets the eye. Brilliant research as always by Truthstream Media.
A new study has found that some commonly consumed beverages such as fruit juice and artificial soda contain levels of toxic metals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead that exceed federal drinking water standards.
Researchers from Tulane University, Louisiana, measured 25 different toxic metals and trace elements in 60 soft beverages, including single fruit juice, mixed fruit juice, plant-based milk, artificial soda, and tea.
The drinks were purchased in New Orleans and are commercially available in supermarkets across the United States.
Researchers found that five of the 60 beverages tested contained levels of a toxic metal above federal drinking water standards.
Two mixed juices had levels of arsenic above the 10 microgram/liter standard. Meanwhile, a cranberry juice, a mixed carrot and fruit juice, and an oat milk each had levels of cadmium exceeding the three parts per billion standard.
What Are Arsenic and Cadmium?
Arsenic is a naturally occurring tasteless, colorless, and odorless, chemical element that can be found in the environment, including in food and water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The element persists in the environment and does not deteriorate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a 10 parts per billion (ppb), or 10 microgram/liter standard for arsenic in public drinking water in 2001, replacing the old standard of 50 microgram/liter.
However, long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic can result in skin disorders, an increased risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, and several types of cancer, according to the CDC.
Cadmium, meanwhile, is another naturally occurring element used in products such as batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics but also found in plant and animal foods, according to the CDC.
When consumed in large amounts, cadmium can cause stomach issues and when inhaled at high levels, it can lead to lung damage or death. Cadmium is considered a cancer-causing agent.
“Exposure to low levels of cadmium in air, food, water, and particularly in tobacco smoke over time may build up cadmium in the kidneys and cause kidney disease and fragile bones,” the CDC notes.
Fruit Juices, Plant-Based Milks Contain Higher Levels
In total, 7 of the 25 elements measured by researchers in their study exceeded drinking water standards in some of the drinks, including nickel, manganese, boron, cadmium, strontium, arsenic, and selenium, while lead was detected in more than 93 percent of the 60 samples, although the majority contained levels below one part per billion.
The highest level (6.3 micrograms/kg) was found in a lime sports drink, though that is still below standards for drinking water set by the EPA and the World Health Organization.
Overall, mixed fruit juices and plant-based milks, including oat and almond milk, contained higher levels of toxic metals than other drinks analyzed in the study, researchers said.
Researchers did not identify the specific brands they studied but noted that they can be purchased at local supermarkets and retail stores.
The findings of the study, titled, “Toxic metals and essential elements contents in commercially available fruit juices and other non-alcoholic beverages from the United States,” were published in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
This week we are joined by James Evans to discuss how the government is currently on a killing spree of bees under the guise of controlling Varroa Mite, destroying millions of healthy bees who do not have the mite which will cause devastating losses to Australia’s food supply.
Former Senator Rodney Culleton also joins us to discuss his newest campaign – a tour to organise the Australian people in a way that he believes will secure our freedom.
ZEROTIME was born out of a desperate need for the truth in Aussie news. For too long, the mainstream media has been lying to the Australian people. Zeee Media commits to bringing you the truth every Wednesday night at 8PM, highlighting key issues the world is facing, how it affects our country and the dangers to our democracy.
If you would like to support Zeee Media to continue getting the truth out, you can donate here.
Phosphorus stimulates budding and blooming. Plants need phosphorus to produce fruits, flowers, and seeds. It also helps make your plants more resistant to disease.
Phosphorus helps plants gain more energy from sunlight and with cloudy, hazy skies we are seeing too often; plants need all the advantages possible to gain energy from sunlight.
Phosphorus doesn’t dissolve like nitrogen. The soil will hang onto phosphorus, not releasing it into water.
Phosphate is needed by all life forms but if taken in too greater quantities it becomes harmful.
In the distant past phosphorus was obtain from manures especially bird or bat droppings called guano.
Phosphorus is also obtained from Reactive Rock Phosphate which is a hard phosphatic rock. In most soils it dissolves very slowly.
To make the rock phosphate more readily available to plants man discovered a process of using sulfuric acid early in the 1900’s, and a new agricultural fertiliser was created called Super or Super Phosphate.
It became a boon to agriculture and farming with tons of Super been spread to cause fast growth in fields and crops.
Unfortunately like a number of discoveries such as DDT and Asbestos, there was a hidden price to pay. Super phosphate kills soil life because its acidic and with their demise leads to unhealthy plants.
Not only that, it was also found that Super laden plants and grasses caused health problems in stock including cancers.
I read a very interesting book years ago called ‘Cancer, Cause and Cure’ written by an Australian farmer, Percy Weston.
Percy observed the results of the introduction of Super on his farm and the Malays that occurred.
For many years now I have not used any chemical fertilisers or chemical sprays including any herbicides anywhere on my property.
For a while I noticed, that even though I obtained good healthy crops and plants, there was some factor that appeared to be missing and the crops are not as lush as I felt they could be.
I often thought that I am not getting sufficient phosphorus in my composts and mulches.
This caused me to do a bit of research on the Internet and found to my delight a company in New Zealand called Sieber Technologies Ltd who make a product called BioPhos.
They take the reactive rock phosphate and break it down naturally with micro organisms making it as readily available to plants as Super is.
The company sent me a email booklet and it showed trials that proved that not only did BioPhos work as well as Super, but actually better as it did not have a ‘peak’ growth on application
and gave a much longer sustained release of phosphorus to plants.
Instead of killing soil life it actually supplies new micro organisms to the soil which carry on breaking the natural phosphorus down, meaning that only one application is needed per year unless you are cropping during the winter as well.
Some rose growers and rose societies recommend using BioPhos for better, healthier roses.
BioPhos contains phosphate, potassium, sulphur and calcium at the rates of P10:K8:S7:Ca28.
BioPhos is Bio Certified for organic growing.
It is pH neutral and used at the following rates; New beds work in 100 grams per square metre, the same with lawns but water in to settle.
Side dressing plants; seedlings 8 grams (a teaspoon ) around base of the plant or in the planting hole. Same for potatoes (which do well with phosphorus) Sowing beans peas etc sprinkle down row with seeds.
Roses and similar sized plants 18 grams or a tablespoon full around plant or in planting hole.
Established fruit trees etc, spread at the rate of 100 grams per square metre around drip line or where feeder roots are. Apply to vegetable gardens in spring and a further application in autumn if growing winter crops.
Can be applied to container plants also.
Apply to tomatoes when planting or side dress existing plants.
A number of gardeners over the years have obtained BioPhos and applied it around their gardens; then a few weeks later many have phoned me to say what a big difference the product has made to their gardens.
I presume one of two things has happened or maybe both of the following:
The gardens and plants were lacking in phosphate and the introduction of it gave a noticeable difference to the plants.
Or the plants were able to obtain more energy from the sun and hence creating a growth spurt.
BioPhos is a must for root and bulb crops such as potatoes, carrots and garlic.
I have now completed a third session of gardening with Rodney Hide which likely aired this coming week then available after that on replay at…..
THIS WEEKS SPECIAL: BIOPHOS two 1.3kilo pouches for $30.00 free shipping (No PO Boxes or outer Islands) Saving you $8.00 shipping costs Normal one 1.3 pouch is $15.00 plus $8.00 shipping total $23.00
or out big 10kilo bag for $38.00 and free shipping saving you $16.00 shipping North Island or $19.00 shipping South Island (No PO Boxes or outer Islands) That is into a carton for shipping and you could add a few more non bulk items into the same carton.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
I have always enjoyed growing different plants that are not commonly available.
This is one of the aspects that makes gardening more enjoyable and exciting when you have successes.
Three vegetables that I have grown in the past and am writing about are not rare but not common for many gardeners.
The first of these is called Chayote or more commonly known as Choko.
Originating from Mexico where the vines grow prolifically they have little financial value there likely because they are so prolific.
Specialist fruit and vegetable shops or flea markets are likely to have chokos for sale at this time of the year for about a dollar each.
Most people likely do not know the fruit and by pass them where people from Asia are likely to be the main buyers.
Choko are a member of the gourd family; Cucurbitaceae, along with melons, cucumbers and squash.
In Asia they are commonly diced up and used in stir fries and soups.
The fruit does not need to be peeled to be cooked or fried in slices. Most people regard it as having a very mild flavor by itself.
It is commonly served raw with seasonings (e.g. salt, butter and pepper) or in a dish with other salad vegetables and/or flavorings. It can also be boiled, stuffed, mashed, baked, fried, or pickled in escabeche sauce.
Both fruit and seed are rich in amino acids and vitamin C.
The fresh green fruit are firm and without brown spots or signs of sprouting. Smaller ones are more tender. I actually I like the fruit raw eaten like an apple they are crisp and refreshing.
The tuberous part of the root is starchy and eaten like a yam (can be fried).
The leaves and fruit have diuretic, cardiovascular and anti-inflammatory properties, and a tea made from the leaves has been used in the treatment of arteriosclerosis, hypertension, and to dissolve kidney stones. So a very versatile, interesting plant.
They are easy to grow and the older fruit will start shooting from the base then all you need to do is place the fruit sideways, half buried in compost with the shoot upwards.
Start off in a container where it will root up and then protect in a glasshouse or similar (even a window sill) till spring when it can be planted out.
It must be planted in a free draining situation, sunny and a degree of protection from frosts.
Spray the vine with Vaporgard for frost protection in winter and cover with frost cloth when there is two or more frosts in a row.
The first season from experience I found no fruit but a lot of growth and some winter damage.
The next season I once again thought all it wanted to do was grow but as the day light hours shortened small flowers and fruit started forming. The fruit grow rapidly and within a week or so a baby fruit becomes bigger than your fist.
For the health and mineral benefits we have; Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 80 kJ (19 kcal): Carbohydrates 4.51 g : Sugars 1.66 g : Dietary fiber 1.7 g : Fat 0.13 g : Protein 0.82 g.
That is an impressive range of B vitamins making 43% of total them there is Vitamin C (9%) 7.7 mg: Vitamin E (1%) 0.12 mg: Vitamin K (4%) 4.1 g
The Trace metals are Calcium (2%) 17 mg: Iron (3%) 0.34 mg: Magnesium (3%) 12 mg: Phosphorus (3%)18 mg: Potassium (3%) 125 mg: Zinc (8%) 0.74 mg
Health wise how good is that? So easy to grow and eat raw to obtain full benefits of the vitamins and minerals.
Next we have a less common one called Jerusalem Artichokes which is a root vegetable from the Helianthus tuberosus family, also called sunroot, sunchoke, earth apple or topinambour, it is a species of sunflower native to eastern North America.
Grown from tubers it can be successfully grown any where that has reasonable drainage and sun light.
Grown in a container, waste area, vegetable garden or flower garden it will thrive.
In a container it grows about a metre or so tall in open ground from a couple of metres to 3 or 4 metres tall dependent on soil and growing conditions.
In autumn it produces smaller sunflower blooms and dies back about this time of the year when you can start harvesting the tubers.
The nobbly tubers contain about 10% protein, no oil, and a surprising lack of starch. However, it is rich in the carbohydrate inulin (76%), which is a polymer of the monosaccharide fructose.
Tubers stored for any length of time will convert their inulin into its component fructose.
Jerusalem artichokes have an underlying sweet taste because of the fructose, which is about one and a half times sweeter than sucrose.
Jerusalem artichokes have also been promoted as a healthy choice for type 2 diabetics, because fructose is better tolerated by people who are type 2 diabetic.
It has also been reported as a folk remedy for diabetes.
Temperature variances have been shown to affect the amount of inulin the Jerusalem artichoke can produce. When not in tropical regions, it has been shown to make less inulin than when it is in a warmer region.
You can find recipes for the tubers on the Internet, steamed or baked and excellent for soups. They have a nutty, earthly taste a bit like Gin seng.
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) is Energy 304 kJ (73 kcal): Carbohydrates 17.44 g: Sugars 9.6 g: Dietary fiber 1.6 g : Fat 0.01 g: Protein 2 g.
Last and the most uncommon of all is yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius, syn.: Polymnia edulis, P. sonchifolia) a species of perennial daisy traditionally grown in the northern and central Andes from Colombia to northern Argentina for its crisp, sweet-tasting, tuberous roots.
The peeled roots are lovely to eat raw, sweet to the taste without the side effects of sugar..
The tubers contain fructooligosaccharide, an indigestible polysaccharide made up of fructose.
Fructooligosaccharides taste sweet, but pass through the human digestive tract unmetabolised, hence have very little caloric value.
Moreover, fructooligosaccharides have a prebiotic effect, meaning they are used by beneficial bacteria that enhance colon health and aid digestion.
Easy to grow, plants grow about 1.5 metres tall large leaves with a texture like Borage harvest, roots in autumn.
If you can obtain a starter tuber of yacon its well worth growing.End….
Here is a link that I received recently that you maybe interested in especially in regards to the current select committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill.
This bill which has in the past been defeated twice before could mean that you are not allowed to grow healthy vegetables by some Govt committee if the bill is passed.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
And this is the story the Facebook censors don’t want you to see:
Quite why Facebook would want to rely on the USA Today for its source of science is a mystery. Perhaps they should have actually checked what real scientists are saying:
Abstract
The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
In this paper, we investigate whether the high orography of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) has helped delay warming over the continent. To that end, we contrast the Antarctic climate response to CO2-doubling with present-day orography to the response with a flattened AIS. To corroborate our…
While most of the the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.
What a farce is the so called royal, fiasco. I’m finding it somewhat nauseating this week, listening to half of Christendom fawning at the feet of a family they consider godly leaders, but that clearly condones pedophilia and thinks nothing of profiteering from the death industry aka weaponry. To the tune of seventeen trillion pounds, as noted, in the article below, enough to end world hunger. If you weren’t aware, see what DU does to the unborn next generation. In light of those thoughts I’m posting again the info on their said investments. Granted it is from 2014 but I doubt anything has changed…do watch the latest Corbett Report on topic. EWR
From namastepublishing.co.uk
Many people are wondering what really caused Fukushima. While we can look into the geologic studies that were taken prior to the Daiichi event, outlining the active 200 meter fault line that Honshu Island rests right on top off, we are obliged as citizens to look even deeper, more so with the admission of an anonymous U.S. government nuclear official that radiation leaking from the plant just 100 meters away is “astronomical.”
Uranium can be mined for some medical purposes and to make electricity, but its main purpose was and is to fuel nuclear warfare against the world. Just six mines provide 85 percent of the world’s uranium and guess who owns the mineral rights to that land?
It may be surprising to realize it is none other than the Queen of England.
She is not alone in her fear-mongering. Our own government has helped to perpetrate warfare using this substance well before Fukushima. U.S. government officials still insist that the use of depleted uranium in missiles, shells, bullets and armor plating did not contribute to Gulf War Syndrome. And the Rand Corporation helped to promote that lie.
The truth of the matter is that the Queen is sitting on $17 trillion pounds of uranium investments—enough money to end world hunger, fuel the world’s energy needs with non-nuclear, clean sources and definitely stop the poverty in her own country. Draconian laws have been passed both in the U.K. and in the U.S. to protect nuclear energy.
Nuclear radiation expert Jay M. Gould told the world the about the extent of this combative totalitarianism in his book, “The Enemy Within: the High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors” that the British royal family, especially the Queen herself. She privately owns investments in uranium through Rio Tinto Zinc., the mining company, originally named Rio Tinto Mines. Ronald Walter Rowland, the Queen’s “buccaneer,”allegedly created this entity for the British Royal family in the late 1950s.
Furthermore, without the book “Royal Fortune,” which led to royal palace scrutiny, nobody would have known about the Queen’s Civil List “surplus.” The £35 million would have followed centuries of Civil List surpluses into the royals Swiss accounts. This is where she hid her uranium investments and the spoils of her ultranationalist, perhaps anti-human agenda….
A timely revisit (remember this was right on the eve of the plandemic) so they’ve since paid farmers in various places to plow under their crops & food production plants have mysteriously burned down … still think the plague was accidental? still think the ‘treatment’s’ safe & effective?
A collapse of our food supply, note, not theirs. They are busy preparing their bolt holes and places of refuge for when the SHTF. These are the ‘sustainable’ lie people who pledged their plan would make things better on planet earth.
A video here from Ice Age Farmer on Youtube. If you listen at 4 minutes in you will see Bill Gates (current promoter of depop via his $$$vaccines) telling us about an epidemic … ‘either naturally caused or intentionally caused’ … so they play us some more. Firstly we have the NZ vaccinologist with her supposed slip of the tongue, a 27 years prior pandemic prediction by the Simpsons, a book with a prediction of the same some 39 years prior and now we have Bill with ‘intentionally caused’ pandemics. I’m not making this up. Please do watch the entire video, it contains important information.
Bill the eugenicist – plain as day isn’t it? Nothing to do with health whatsoever EWR
From childrenshealthdefense.org
Bill Gates, long recognized as one of the world’s foremost proponents of vaccines, raised some eyebrows at a recent talk in Australia when he admitted there are “problems” with current COVID-19 vaccines.
Bill Gates, long recognized as one of the world’s foremost proponents of vaccines, raised some eyebrows at a recent talk in Australia when he admitted there are “problems” with current COVID-19 vaccines.
“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”
Such statements came as a surprise to some in light of Gates’ longstanding support of — and investments in — vaccine manufacturers and organizations promoting global vaccination. However, they were the latest in a string of developments in recent weeks that have increasingly called the COVID-19 vaccines, in particular, into question.
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
.jpg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.