Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Yogurt buyers beware: 'All Natural' yogurt products found to contain aspartame and artificial colors


(NaturalNews) If you're buying so-called "All Natural" yogurt sold at the grocery store, you might assume the phrase means the product contains nothing artificial or synthetic. After all, that's the definition of "all natural."

But food marketing companies can get pretty sneaky about using the term. They know the FDA doesn't regulate "all natural" claims, so technically any food product can be claimed as "all natural" even if it contains artificial sweeteners, synthetic chemical coloring, hexane solvent chemicals, laboratory-derived antibiotics, toxic heavy metals and anything else imaginable. (Seriously, you could mix jet fuel into yogurt and still label it "All Natural.")

That's probably why Natural News has found that some yogurt products claiming to be "All Natural" contain aspartame and artificial coloring chemicals -- two ingredients which are clearly not natural. Here are two products currently on store shelves that prove this very point:

"All Natural" yogurts made with aspartame and artificial coloring chemicals

Yoplait Fat Free Yogurt (UPC # 070470408590)

- "Kosher Certified"
- "Fat Free"
- 7 grams of sugar per serving


Great Value Light Yogurt (UPC # 078742144184)
- "Fat Free"
- "Low Fat"
- 11 grams of sugar per serving


When you buy yogurt, don't forget to read the ingredients labels

As these two yogurt products clearly demonstrate, when you buy yogurt, make sure you really read the ingredients labels. "All Natural" doesn't mean it's natural, and the "Greek" adjective on yogurt products doesn't mean it's made in Greece.

Claims of "All Natural" have zero meaning in the real world. Such claims are frequently used to mislead consumers rather than inform them about what's really in the product. In fact, when you see the claim "All Natural" on a food product, this should be a red flag to immediately read the ingredients label and find out whether the claim is true.

Data for this article were derived from the Food Essentials database ( under license to the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (

Sunday, 29 June 2014

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

global warming
(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.
Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.
We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).
This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."
Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.
Here's the proof of the climate change fraud

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."
After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.
Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)
This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.
This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

The following chart, published on the website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.
Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2

Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.
Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

Reforestation is the answer

Forests act like sponges that soak up rainwater, and then they turn around and slowly release that water back into the air, "moisturizing" the atmosphere and keeping humidity levels high enough to support other nearby grasses, shrubs and plants. When you clear-cut forests -- as has been done all across the world to make room for mechanized agriculture -- you effectively raise temperatures by eliminating nature's plant-based water retention and cooling systems.
Industrialized farming, in other words, has already been historically shown to radically increase continental temperatures and "warm" the region. So why isn't the White House warning the world about the dangers of industrialized agriculture?
The answer: Because it doesn't accomplish anything that's politically important to this administration. It's far more important to use the false panic of global warming to shut down clean coal power plants (U.S. coal plants are FAR cleaner than China's) and drive the population into a state of subservient obedience through doomsday scare tactics.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming

These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.
These are the same government people who build massive networks of underground bunkers and caves in complete secrecy while publicly claiming preppers are conspiracy theorists. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.
If you think this same government is telling you the truth about global warming, you probably need to have your head examined. But not by a government-licensed psychiatrist, or she'll dose your head full of psychiatric medications that cause you to lose so much of your cognitive function, you'll actually start to believe CNN's broadcasts.
Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:
What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.
Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?
This brings us to the simple, obvious solution to all this. If you want to cool the planet, focus on reforestation efforts. If you want to retain moisture and keep your soils alive, you need diverse plant-based ecosystems, not clear-cut fields running monoculture operations.
As an environmentalist, I'm always concerned about pollutants and emissions, especially heavy metals being dumped into the atmosphere. But I've also learned over the years that almost everything the federal government aggressively promotes to the public is a blatant lie. Rarely does anything resembling the truth ever come out of Washington D.C.

Monsanto Buys Weather Climate Corporation For 1 Billion

MonsantoMonsanto, the agricultural biotech giant, also responsible for manufacturing multiple pesticides that have been linked to numerous human ailments has announced the acquisition of the Climate Corporation. It’s a climate data research company that Monsanto has purchased for approximately 1 billion dollars. This purchase is expected to benefit the company, putting them at the forefront of scientific weather data, which would put a large amount of information with regards to climate into farmers’ hands. The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals.
Climate change, according to the Monsanto corporation, presents ever increasing extreme challenges for farmers today. This is indeed true, but many farmers are starting to find ways around this naturally. As a result some governments are even rejecting Monsanto climate resilient patents, like India recently did. What makes the Climate Corporation so special is its wide variety of techniques they can use to predict local weather events with high precision.
Farmers will be able to access information from Monsanto’s new satellite-based science software. Currently the trial version of the software is being tested by around 160 US farmers across 40,000 acres of land.
This move comes after the Monsanto corporation just passed it’s historically weakest quarter. This comes as no surprise as the entire planet has been speaking up against Monsanto as of late, and with good reason. Monsanto recently benefited from the Monsanto Protection Act, which was recently shut down thanks to activism world wide. We can really make a difference here, all we have to do is try.
A large majority of countries across the planet have chosen to ban anything related to Monsanto, and Monsanto has been making a number of headlines with regards to their products. This makes it very hard to trust the company, and more people across the planet are starting to realize that major biotech corporations like this are just not needed. The human race can do much better than this.
Below is a clip from Jeffrey M. Smith, a GMO researcher from the Institute for Responsible Technology in an interview with RT news accusing the company of trying to take full control of the world’s seed supply. Below that I have listed a number of articles with regards to Monsanto, Pesticides (manufactured by Monsanto) and GMOs that we have recently covered. We have not listed all of them so please feel free to browse through the site for even more information.

Saturday, 19 October 2013

Monsanto Blamed For Bee Population Collapse, So It Buys Bee Research Firm

If you can’t beat’em, why not buy’em? Biotechnology giant Monsanto has had the collective finger pointed at it for a lot of things, including the apparent collapse of the bee population. So instead of fighting off skeptics, it just decided to buy out Beeologics, a major international research firm devoted to studying and protecting bees.
Natural News says Beeologics made the announcement that as of September 28, 2011, the company is part of Monsanto. Beeologics was devoted to studying colony collapse disorder (CCD) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) to try and find out how to intervene and stop bees from dying off.
Critics of Monsanto are worried that it will avoid CCD and IAPV, since they’re big on genetically modified organisms, and will deny any link between the bee deaths and the GMO technologies and chemicals it employs.
“Monsanto will use the base technology from Beeologics as a part of its continuing discovery and development pipeline,” says the announcement. “Biological products will continue to play an increasingly important role in supporting the sustainability of many agricultural systems.”
Which could mean using more chemicals to fight the bee collapse, when chemicals may have had a part in the deaths in the first place. Poor bees. We like our honey.
*Thanks for the tip, David!

Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher

Monsanto Co. said Wednesday it bought a smaller biotech research company that is developing a technology to kill crop pests while protecting the health of bees.
Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company, did not disclose terms of the deal to buy the company, called Beeologics.
Bees are critical plant pollinators, and public concern has swelled over a recent bee pathology called colony collapse disorder. The disorder causes whole hives of bees to die off, cutting the numbers of insects that naturally pollinate important food crops.
It's still unclear what causes colony collapse disorder, but pesticides have been linked to bee deaths.
Monsanto develops genetically engineered strains of corn and soybeans that grow their own pesticides. The company said it will use Beeologics's technology to develop new crops, but it didn't elaborate.
"Both companies expect that their combined research could provide farmers with novel approaches to the challenges they face," Monsanto said in a statement.
Shares of Monsanto fell $2.07, or 3 percent, to $63.94.

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse

(NaturalNews) Amid all the controversy over genetically-modified (GM) crops and their pesticides and herbicides decimating bee populations all around the world, biotechnology behemoth Monsanto has decided to buy out one of the major international firms devoted to studying and protecting bees. According to a company announcement, Beeologics handed over the reins to Monsanto back on September 28, 2011, which means the gene-manipulating giant will now be able to control the flow of information and products coming from Beeologics for colony collapse disorder (CCD).

Since 2007, Beeologics has been studying CCD, as well as Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV), for the purpose of coming up with intervention-based ways to mitigate these conditions. And based on the way the company describes both CCD and IAPV on its website, Beeologics has largely taken the approach that intervention, rather than prevention, is the key to solving the global bee crisis.

Now that Beeologics is owned and controlled by Monsanto, the company is sure to completely avoid dealing with the true causes of CCD and IAPV as they pertain to Monsanto's crop technologies -- GMOs and their chemical counterparts. So going into the future, it seems expected that Beeologics will come up with "scientific breakthroughs" that deny any link between CCD and GMO technologies, and instead blame mystery pathogens and other factors that require more chemicals to eliminate.

According to Anthony Gucciardi at Activist Post, Beeologics has also long had a cozy relationship with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is convenient for Monsanto. The USDA, in fact, considers Beeologics to be one of the foremost bee research organizations in the world, as does the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the mainstream media and "leading entomologists" worldwide, according to the company.

Monsanto to use Beeologics' 'biological tools' to develop more GMOs, crop chemicals

Beeologics' acquisition announcement explains that Monsanto plans to incorporate all the biological research that Beeologics has conducted over the years into its own programs for developing more GMO systems. Monsanto has also seized control of a key product that is currently in the Beeologics development pipeline that supposedly "help[s] protect bee health."

"Monsanto will use the base technology from Beeologics as a part of its continuing discovery and development pipeline," says the announcement. "Biological products will continue to play an increasingly important role in supporting the sustainability of many agricultural systems."

To translate, it appears as though Monsanto plans to use even more chemical inputs to supposedly solve the bee collapse problem, even though it is these very inputs that are largely the cause of the bee collapse problem. Several recent studies, after all, have definitively linked crop pesticides and herbicides, as well as high fructose corn syrup, to CCD.

The future looks bleak for bees, in other words, as Monsanto appears poised to slowly gobble up all the competing companies and organizations that threaten its own GMO products, while pretending to care about the dwindling bee populations. And unless drastic action is taken to stop Monsanto in its continued quest to dominate global agriculture, the food supply as we know it will soon be a thing of the past.

Sources for this article include:

Global Enviro-Eugenic Consensus Fixes 500 Million As “Optimum Population Size”

Jurriaan Maessen


October 22, 2012

The Georgia Guidestones- a collection of standing stones mimicking ancient Celtic stone circles in Britain and France, remind us that this particular monument, crafted and donated by “a small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason” is a commemoration of ancient sacrifices performed by the Druid priest-class satisfying their deity’s unquenchable blood thirst. One of the inscriptions carved into the Guidestones proposes an elite class will “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, after which is proposed: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”
500 million people. This exact number is mentioned by demographers and environmentalists all across the globe as the ideal figure below which or at which the human population should be kept. In comparison to the current global population, 8 billion, the envisioned total of 500 million would constitute a reduction of no less than 94 percent from today’s total. The Club of Rome in their “Goals for mankind” proposes “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
CNN founder Ted Turner went even further in his ide al of optimum population: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First, may be the ultimate death loving sociopath when he states: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
An article published in the January 19 1949 Evening Independent titledPosterity Begins At Home, the author Hal Boyle writes about a man and woman (George and Grace) who attended a college class in “world population- its cause and cure”, and writes down what the man and woman are discussing on the way home:
“Grace had thought it possible for the world to support adequately a population of 750,000,000. Gently George showed her she was wrong. The right figure, he said, was 500,000,000. “At that population level”, he said, : “everybody in the world could have plenty of bread and milk and steak- all the good things of the earth. And there would be no reason for wars, for everyone would have enough. “We must find some way- gradually, of course- to cut the world population down to a sensible 500,000,000.”
This humorous piece written in a time less dumbed-down, the author clearly criticizes the upcoming Rockefeller-inspired eugenics-movement in the U.S., ending his tale with George and Grace happily having six children.
The obsession with specific boundaries of human expansion in relation to population numbers continues to this day. In a June 2012 discussion paper titledOne Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity put out by the United Nations Environmental Programme this mystical numerology is reaffirmed as one of the elite’s envisioned upper ceilings above which no human being will be allowed:

“looking at 94 different estimates of the upper bounds of Earth’s population found estimates ranging from a low of 500 000 000 to a high of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.”

Although the study hastens to explain that “the outcome of attempts to define a static ceiling for sustainable human population seems destined to uncertainty”, the writers say: “models that capture the key dynamics of the Earth system can serve as a map for choices that will impact our collective future (however many of us there ultimately are).”
In other words: by modeling this or that possible outcome of the so-called “human footprint”, the desired number will follow as a result. We will have to hope their modeling computer are better attuned than those used by the IPCC, calculating likely deluge engulfing the planet as a result of global warming- or sudden freeze as a result of global cooling, depending on which enviro-eugenicist you ask. A 2010 document titled Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future by scientists from Cornell University a culling to 2 billion from current numbers is being proposed unhesitatingly. The document first paints doom and gloom for mankind if not for a quick and globally enforced culling policy:
“a population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only one child would be necessary to achieve the goal of reducing world population from the current 6.8 billion to an optimal population of approximately 2 billion in slightly more than 100 years.”
“Although a rapid reduction in population numbers to 2 billion humans could cause social, economic, and political problems, continued rapid growth will result in a dire situation with major starvation and disease outbreaks.”
Notice the “could” and “will” placed cautiously within this one sentence. Reducing human numbers could cause some problems, further growth will be catastrophic – through which the authors echo the classic Neo-Malthusian threat: reduce human numbers or else…”. At the end the authors state: “We must avoid allowing human population to continue to increase beyond the limit of the Earth’s natural resources, which will inevitably lead to increased disease, malnutrition, and violent conflicts over limited resources.” Similar warnings issued by Malthus in the 19th century and Paul Ehrlich in the 20th century of course turned out to be hogwash, although the last mentioned author maintains his stance to this day. This breed of enviro-eugenicists (to use a term coined by Aaron Dykes in 2007) drags behind it a lot of scrub-wood. An organization calling itself “the global community” is also transfixed on the number of 500,000,000:
“The Global Community proposes a tight global policy, benignly implemented, or it will be very nasty indeed. In practice, a human population of 10 to 12 billion would be too uncomfortably high and wold add a high strain on world resources. What kind of world population would be reasonable? What goal should we aim at? A population should be small enough to be sustainable indefinitely and still allow plenty of leeway for ourselves and other lifeforms. It should also be large enough to allow the formation of healthy civilizations. We propose a world population of 500 million.”
Again 500,000,000. What is it with this particular number (5) which has makes these enviro-eugenicists froth at the mouth. According to the mystical tabel of numbers, 5 represents equilibrium, balance etc, which corresponds exactly to the writing on the Guidestone, reading: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Balance. Order. These are words used by tyrants who believe that they are destined to rule mankind. According to “late scholar” Alan Roper in his 1913 essay Ancient Eugenics the chosen number (5) seems to have some mystical significance:
“(…) there is”, Roper writes, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”
Writing about the eugenicists’ obsession with fixed boundaries in regards to population numbers, Roper invokes Plato as one of the first to subscribe to “a mystic doctrine of numbers”:
“(…) he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

Roper also quotes William Bateson’s Biological Fact and Structure of Society that fixing an optimum population can only be done by measuring the “energy-income” of the earth, not spreading “a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth”:

“It is recognized today that it should be the endeavour of social organization to secure the optimum number, and not the maximum number. To spread a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth—the implied ambition of many publicists—in the light of natural knowledge is seen to be reckless folly.”
“But”, Roper continues in his pre-WWI essay, “there is a natural tendency which limits the numbers of the population to the energy-income of the earth. Among the intelligent classes of a civilized community it is effected by control of reproduction.”
We return for a moment to the second inscription in the Georgia Guidestones: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”
The entire eugenic concept of “optimum population” has been formulated way back in the 19th century- which in its turn was a follow-up of more ancient principles of infanticide. The global elite’s obsession with occult numerology continues to this day as they move the population chess pieces to and fro in the name of the environment.