He Holds the Patent to Bring Down Monsanto and Change Agriculture Forever.

Paul-Stamets-620x264He holds the patent that could destroy Monsanto and change the world!
If there’s anything you read – or share – let this be it. The content of this article has potential to radically shift the world in a variety of positive ways.

And as Monsanto would love for this article to not go viral, all we can ask is that you share, share, share the information being presented so that it can reach as many people as possible.

In 2006, a patent was granted to a man named Paul Stamets. Though Paul is the world’s leading mycologist, his patent has received very little attention and exposure. Why is that? Stated by executives in the pesticide industry, this patent represents “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.” And when the executives say disruptive, they are referring to it being disruptive to the chemical pesticides industry.

What has Paul discovered? The mycologist has figured out how to use mother nature’s own creations to keep insects from destroying crops. It’s what is being called SMART pesticides. These pesticides provide safe & nearly permanent solution for controlling over 200,000 species of insects – and all thanks to the ‘magic’ of mushrooms.
Read more: Green Circkles

Watch Out for BMPEA in Supplements.

Tired of Being a Human Guinea Pig for the Billion Dollar Supplements Industry?

well_supplements-tmagArticleWhat YOU don’t know about weight loss, body building and energy supplements could kill you, or darn near. The latest study finding concerning levels of a chemical almost identical to amphetamines called BMPEA is just another lyric in the same old song and dance between consumer safety and products hitting the shelves without proper analysis or regulation beforehand.

It was only after trying unsuccessfully to find out from the F.D.A. which supplements contained BMPEA that Dr. Cohen and academics at other universities conducted their own tests, identifying the stimulant in 11 of 21 products.

As early as 2013, scientists at the FDA said in an article published last year that they noticed many popular supplements listed among their ingredients a little-known plant called acacia rigidula, a shrub native to Mexico and southern Texas.

“The plant’s presence in so many supplements was a red flag,” said Dr. Pieter A. Cohen, the lead author of the new study published Tuesday and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. He added that it’s not uncommon for companies to spike weight-loss and exercise supplements with amphetamine-like chemicals, then hide them on their labels under the names of obscure plants to give the impression they are natural botanical extracts.

Dr. Cohen said the F.D.A. appeared to be waiting for evidence that BMPEA was harming consumers. “If they wait long enough,” he said, “I suspect they will have that level of evidence to remove it from the market.”

In December, the Canadian health authorities said they forced a recall of JetFuel Superburn after the product was found to contain BMPEA and another amphetamine-like stimulant.

The Food and Drug Administration documented two years ago that nine such supplements contained the same chemical, but never made public the names of the products or the companies that made them. Neither has it recalled the products nor issued a health alert to consumers.

The Canadian health authorities in December called BMPEA, “a serious health risk,” and pulled supplements that contain it from store shelves. Although BMPEA was first synthesized in the 1930s as a replacement for amphetamine, it was never introduced as a pharmaceutical drug and its side effects were never studied in humans. Under federal law, dietary supplements can contain only ingredients that are part of the food supply or that were already on the market before 1994. Dr. Cohen said that BMPEA has never been sold as a food or supplement, and as a result any product that contains it is considered adulterated, which would give the F.D.A. the authority to send warning letters to companies that add it to their supplements.

Three of the supplements — JetFuel Superburn, JetFuel T-300 and MX-LS7 — found in Dr. Cohen’s study to contain BMPEA were still for sale at Vitamin Shoppe, one of the country’s largest retailers of supplements, with hundreds of locations. None list BMPEA as an ingredient. One of the products is the same one that the Canadian health authorities pulled from stores.

gat-jetfuel-superburn-bannerThe FDA is horribly lax at regulating the 33 billion-dollar-per-year supplement industry and many claim it’s in part because of conflict of interest with the agency staffing former employees of the very industry they are suppose to be regulating. The FDA however, claims it’s due to being understaffed, over-burdened and under-funded. The FDA has been under fire for several years now; being accused of continuous conflicts of interest and downright bribery from lobbying and political groups.

Daniel Fabricant, who ran the agency’s division of dietary supplement programs from 2011 to 2014, had been a senior executive at the Natural Products Association, which has spent millions of dollars lobbying to block new laws that would hold supplement makers to stricter standards. He left the F.D.A. last year and returned to the association as its chief executive. His current replacement at the F.D.A.’s supplement division also comes from the NPA trade group.

Many agree. “There are just too many other people who could have that job who don’t have these conflicts,” said Arthur L. Caplan, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center.

In February 2013, Dr. Kenneth R. Spaeth, the division chief of occupational and environmental medicine at North Shore University Hospital in New York, reported to the F.D.A. that 20 of his patients developed muscle aches, fatigue and liver damage after using a brand of B vitamins. Some female patients had stopped having their periods and started growing facial hair. He said he told the F.D.A. he suspected the vitamins were contaminated with anabolic steroids.

Dr. Spaeth said he got no response for weeks and called the agency numerous times. He also sent multiple emails to Dr. Fabricant and other F.D.A. officials, pleading with them to get the vitamins off the market.

In response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the F.D.A. said it was “unable to locate” any records of Dr. Spaeth’s communications. However, Dr. Spaeth provided The New York Times with the emails.

The Canadian government issued a public health alert about BMPEA to consumers: “Amphetamine stimulants can increase blood pressure, heart rate and body temperature; lead to serious cardiovascular complications (including stroke) at high doses; suppress sleep and appetite, and be addictive.” Their findings were published in the journal Drug Testing and Analysis.

Under a 1994 law, supplements are exempt from the same trials and testing applied to prescription drugs and medical devices. They do not have to undergo federal reviews of their safety or effectiveness before they are sold to the public, and as a result, tainted supplements are usually pulled from the market only after consumers are harmed.

To keep up with this and other health alerts and informative articles, follow our Health Club or our online health magazine page.

Another New Study Proves Link Between Roundup and Cancer

noroundupA report published 3/20/2015 in the journal The Lancet Oncology says glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is a “probable carcinogen.”

The report is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization know as WHO.

“This latest finding, which links Monsanto’s Roundup to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer is not the first to make these links, but it is one of the strongest indictments of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director for the Organic Consumers Association.

The study also mentions 5 chemicals used in pet collars and home insect sprays as carcinogens. The report classifies glyphosate, malathion and diazinon as probable carcinogens all used in such home products.

The pesticides tetrachlorvinphos and parathion received a slightly stronger designation as possible carcinogens because there is more evidence for their cancer-causing effects in animals, but still little information on their effect on people. Both of these possible carcinogens are already restricted; tetrachlorvinphos is banned in the European Union while still allowed for use in livestock and pet collars in the U.S. Parathion was banned in both the U.S. and Europe in 2003.

… The Department of Agriculture does not test food for glyphosate residues, however in 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency raised the allowed limits of glyphosate residues on fruits and vegetables and the allowable amount farmers can spray their fields with this deadly toxin.

Glyphosate is up for review this year by the EPA.

The report comes as legislatures in Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii and other states consider mandatory labeling of genetically modified food and restricting the planting of genetically modified crops, and as Vermont, who has already passed such labeling laws in their state are currently having to defend their decision in the courts against Monsanto who is suing them for it.

This prompted the Environmental Working Group to call on the FDA to require mandatory GMO labeling.

“The widespread adoption of GMO corn and soybeans has led to an explosion in the use of glyphosate — a main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and Dow’s Enlist Duo,” said Ken Cook, EWG president. “Consumers have the right to know how their food is grown and whether their food dollars are driving up the use of a probable carcinogen.”

Excerpt from Study:

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA,14 Canada,6 and Sweden7 reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma. A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice.15 Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.

Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations.16 Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro. The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).

How many more studies such as these need to be published before Americans get the hint to stop using these deadly carcinogen-laced products.

To follow more news, studies and articles regarding your health, your pet’s health and your environment’s health, see our main site Circkles.com. Also see our full article on pet collars in our April 2015 Pet Circkles Edition.

References: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract

Letter to USDA Regarding DGAC Request.

March 19, 2015

Dear Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack,

In regards to the recent request by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) that environmental conditions be considered as a vital aspect of healthy food guidelines, we at the Circkles Organization for the benefit of the greater good and all of our members support the DGAC’s request and ask that you take into consideration the following points as well.

1.) The Cattleman’s Association, meat industry, and certain Republican members of congress have expressed that they do not believe the DGAC is within their charter to make such a request. We at Circkles would point out that the DGAC is much more qualified to make such an analysis than those who are making these allegations, namely the meat industry and its supporters as well as certain member of Congress who receive support from said opposers and others.

2.) The time is passed due that we as Americans need to start putting the health of our environment above the desire of certain corporations to pursue higher profit margins at the expense of everyone’s health and that of our environment. We are already dangerously close to not being able to reverse the damage done by chemical agriculture as it is.

3.) Scientific research studies have proven time and time again the dangers of toxic chemicals in our food and environment are already having very adverse effects on our health and that of the planet.

4.) It is only the greed for money and power that is preventing the DGAC’s recommendations from becoming part of the latest dietary guidelines update.

5.) We are sure you are aware the currently increasing demand of the American public for cleaner food and their disapproval of their right to it constantly being thwarted by big business greed  and politician desire for power over the best interests of the people.

The American people want better, healthier food and lives. It’s also long-overdue that the departments in charge of it should consider the needs and desires of those they are suppose to represent.

Thank you for your consideration,

L.J. Hodek, Editor in Chief,
Circkles Organization for the Greater Good.

Meat Industry and Republicans Don’t Want Americans Healthy.

plate1Proving the battle for healthy food, a.k.a the Healthy Rights Movement, is a never-ending challenge even for committees who actually do have our best interests in mind on occasion, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC – who makes recommendations for what you most commonly know as the food pyramid and Recommended Daily Allowances charts) released a report on February 19 stating that the health of the planet should also be considered along with proper nutrition. The panel concluded that a plant-focused diet lower in red meat is not only paramount to good health, but is more sustainable as well.

Of course, the meat industry was the first to object, saying sustainability is “outside the scope of the Dietary Committee’s charter.”

I’m sorry, but healthy food IS the Dietary Committee’s business, and foods laced with toxins and that destroy our environment are seriously detrimental to good health. But…once again, health minded committees, organizations and individuals are being forced to choke on Big Businesses’ profit margins. It’s money over heath over and over again.

Many politicians (mostly Republicans) also oppose the federal government mixing nutrition guidelines with environmental concerns – those politicians who support the opposing lobbying groups and the meat industry of course.

There’s a new petition on Change.org that’s calling for support of the lower-meat and sustainability recommendations, and public comments on the scientific report can be submitted for a 45 day period ending April 8, 2015, and oral comments can be delivered at a public meeting in Bethesda, MD on March 24, 2015 on a first-come, first-served basis.

It’s now up to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the Dept. of Health and Human Services to decide whether they will consider the Dietary Committee’s suggestion when they write the new Dietary Guidelines which are updated every 5 years. Trying to plead their case for our right to be healthy, 49 academic centers, health advocacy groups, and environmental advocacy groups sent a recent letter to the secretaries urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to adopt the sustainability recommendations developed by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)

However, several Republicans and Secretary Tom Vilsack have stated they are going to try and force the old nutrition guidelines by basically tell the Dietary Committee they have no business voicing their opinions regarding how the environment impacts our health because it’s not in their job description.


“If Secretary Vilsack ignores the sustainability recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee after their months-long deliberation, he will once again side with the powerful economic interests of the industrial meat companies and not with the health and well-being of all Americans,” says Bob Martin of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, which also signed the letter.

The meat industry, meanwhile, has asked for an extension of the 45-day public comment period on the dietary guideline recommendations. Why? Probably so they can have more time to sway public opinion in their favor. Why else would they want an extension on something that is NOT in their favor? Despite broad support from health and environmental groups, USDA and HHS are under pressure from registered lobbies (including The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the National Chicken Council) to exclude the sustainability recommendations in the final rendition of the revised dietary guidelines

There’s been no decision yet from the USDA as to whether the comment period will be extended. But, once again, politicians and big business are trying to determine for us whether we have the right to be healthy if it interferes with their profits.

See our letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding the DGAC’s request.

©2015 Circkles.com

For more news that affects you and your health, follow our Emagazine, Circkles.com

Lumber Liquidators linked to health and safety violations

laminate-floor-cutaway60 Minutes found that Lumber Liquidators’ Chinese-made laminate flooring contains amounts of toxic formaldehyde – a known carcinogen- that do not meet health and safety standards. Some of Lumber Liquidator’s laminate contains up to 20 times the allowable amount of formaldehyde. See the 60 minutes report below.

Not only is this alarming news, but during the investigation, it was found that Lumber Liquidators has also been fraudulent by labeling their products as CARP 2 compliant when they are not. That is misleading advertising and misleading the public that their products are safe when they are not. The company just announced it is now involved in a class action lawsuit as well.

Our best advice: if you want hardwood flooring, stick to the real stuff, not the fake, manufactured from plastics and layers of cheaper materials stuff. Natural, made from natural products is always best over manmade prefabricated materials loaded with toxins.


Will Your Internet Remain FREE? February 26 May Change it all.

title2What happens in the next four months will go a long way to determining the future of the Internet. By now, you probably know what’s at stake: net neutrality, or, as some call it, the open Internet.

Net neutrality is the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet service providers discriminating against specific online services or websites.  In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.

The FCC is now in the process of reviewing over 3.7 million comments and shaping new net neutrality rules.  Advocates of strong open internet rules (like Public Knowledge) have urged the FCC to implement clear, bright line rules that prevent ISPs from blocking and discriminating against websites and other online services.  These rules must be based in what is known as “Title II authority.”  Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that strong net neutrality rules will survive the expected court challenge.

While all the recent attention on net neutrality has largely kept ISP behavior in check, after the DC Circuit overturned net neutrality rules in January 2014 there have been no rules in place to prevent ISPs from blocking content.

Since the dawn of the internet, there has been a presumption among its creators that information that was transmitted was treated equally – similarly to the way voices traveled over phone lines (after all, the first internet transmission was over phone lines).  This general admission, come-one-come-all quality was the foundation that allowed the web’s organic growth from a fringe service to the fundamental, worldwide communications service we know today.

But even as the information available online exploded exponentially, the companies that provided the internet access on-ramp consolidated into the small handful of giant service providers we know today.  As power consolidated into the hands of a very few service providers, they realized they might have the freedom to prioritize and degrade certain types of content flow over the pipes they controlled.

As examples of this abuse began to surface, Americans asked the FCC to step in and codify the “presumption” of network neutrality into actual regulations to prevent the ISPs from engaging in preferential or discriminatory treatment for financial gain or just because they felt like it.

In January 2014, as a result of a Verizon lawsuit, the DC District Court struck down the FCC’s net neutrality rules. While the Court made clear that the FCC has authority over internet access generally, it found that the open internet rules specifically were built on a flawed legal foundation. The decision left it open for the FCC to decide what to do next to reestablish net neutrality.

In April 2014, press reports leaked that the FCC had new net neutrality proposal. The proposal reportedly did prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against websites, but as part of the new rules, ISPs would be able to charge companies for preferential treatment if they deemed it “commercially reasonable.” The discriminatory commercial reasonableness standard opened up the internet to have fast lanes for some online services and slow lanes for others, allowing ISPs to impose a new price of entry for online innovation. This leaked proposal resulted in siginicant public outcry from the public, policymakers, and members of the media.


Want to make your voice heard? You can send your complaints or comments directly to the FCC with this form (remember to do so before the vote on February 26, 2014).


Read More: https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality

GREEN TIPS: Going back to using bar soaps.

How-To-Make-Soap1-660x444Liquid soaps, including shampoo, all have the same basic foundational ingredients as bar soap, so in essence, you are paying extra for the water added to liquid soaps and the plastic bottles they are packaged in.

Bar soaps work just as good, and today, they have been modified with extra moisturizing ingredients and herbal oils and scents to be even better than most liquid soaps and shampoo. So why pay extra for the water and plastic packaging.

There are many homemade or artisan crafted bar soaps on the market now that are wonderful. Plus, many of them can be purchased in bulk and don’t even come with any wrappers, or just paper packaging at most. These are much more economical than any liquid soap.

But you are saying to yourself, “What about the mess and when the bar gets too small to use, you end up throwing that part away and it’s wasteful.” Our response: “True, but take all those small, unusable pieces of soap, put them in a bottle of water, shake, and use the liquid soap you just made to wash your hair with. Always put your bars of soap in a soap dish to make the mess easier to clean than if you just put them on the sink.

For more sustainable living and homesteading tips and articles, read our Green Circkles page.

Girl with Hairy Moles and Other Birth Defects from Pesticides.


In this April 1, 2013 photo, Aixa Cano, 5, who has hairy moles all over her body that doctors can’t explain, sits on a stoop outside her home in Avia Terai, in Chaco province, Argentina. Although it’s nearly impossible to prove, doctors say Aixa’s birth defect may be linked to agrochemicals. In Chaco, children are four times more likely to be born with devastating birth defects since biotechnology dramatically expanded farming in Argentina. Chemicals routinely contaminate homes, classrooms and drinking water. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)


argentina-agrochemicals-005.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG_In this May 2, 2013 photo, empty agrochemical containers including Monsanto’s Round Up products lay discarded at a recycling center in Quimili, Santiago del Estero province, Argentina. Instead of a lighter chemical burden in Argentina, agrochemical spraying has increased eightfold, from 9 million gallons in 1990 to 84 million gallons today. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up products, is used roughly eight to ten times more per acre than in the United States. Yet Argentina doesn’t apply national standards for farm chemicals, leaving rule-making to the provinces and enforcement to the municipalities. The result is a hodgepodge of widely ignored regulations that leave people dangerously exposed. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=mam&utm_campaign=mam