Fukushima: Global Elite Political Theater

(Nancy Levant)

 Something is far beyond contaminated and glow-fishy about the Fukushima meltdown. For two years it has been discussed and swarming with expertise, but with no limiting or actual efforts to stop the radiological contaminants from being released into the Pacific and all other connected oceans, the largest food and oxygen sources on the planet.

 Yet, surfers are surfing, swimmers are swimming, children are playing on beaches, and restaurants all over the earth are eating Pacific fish and also contaminated Atlantic fish according to multiple reports.

Also never actually disclosed or addressed is that perhaps as many as 1500 nukes have been tested in the world’s oceans, which also might have produced “contamination” since nuclear pollution doesn’t ever really go away.

 So, at this juncture I ask myself, where is the left hand and what might it be doing?

 Politics, as we know, has new meaning in the global world of corporate-political elites. Their political intentions were always based in deceptions from the earliest planning stages to today, for one hundred if not two hundred years. The UN Agenda 21 blueprint has never been fully disclosed in truth or in the open.

The 47 U.S. Biosphere Reserves are still completely under the veil for 90% of American people who have still never heard of them; same with the World Heritage Sites, and they are totally in the dark regarding the 620+ global reserves.

Stratospheric Aerial Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (chemtrailing) are only just now kind of/sort of acknowledged as “possibly” damaging the planet for 35 years or more as well as the super-secret global HAARP facilities, which happen to super-heat the atmosphere, while aerial spraying traps the “warming” on the ground beneath the artificial, metallized, and very noxious and debilitating clouds and haze that laid across the skies, globally.

 And suddenly, we have another global crisis, publicized, with people sick, dying badly, and with sea life really, really sick and dying, and with worsening news and contamination pouring into the Pacific every day. Instead, a handful of “experts” are studying, having meetings and press conferences, pondering, coordinating thoughts and ideas, kicking the dirt, etc., etc.

What we are witnessing is political theater.

The problem is we, too, are getting sicker and sicker. Fukushima is, after all, not just an oceanic problem. Radioactive ocean water evaporates and rains down…on everything…over the entire planet, and it just so happens that the nano-particulates of aluminum, barium, strontium and other concoctions sprayed from jets and commercial planes, globally, also rain down, blow in the wind…nano-sized mind you…which means their ingredients are wholly and completely unavoidable.

Even your N95 masks, coats, gloves, hats and safety glasses cannot protect you, and these nano-particles are in your homes, your cars, all over your children, stores, pets, possessions, lawns, trees, forests, in all watershed systems, and all over the nation and world’s crop fields (think Monsanto “aluminum resistant” seeds).

Consider well the over 1400 global seed vaults.

I fear we are experiencing a double-whammy. I am also thinking that a “global” crisis or crises are forthcoming, which will put “global” power centers front and center and in full-force all over the entire world. I equally think that global health may be collapsing as we speak, as global nature is demonstrating. Billions of fish and sea creatures dying, billions of birds, hundreds of trillions of insects and amphibians, and even large sea and forest mammals, far larger than human beings, are dying all around the world…and badly.

Hundreds of millions of forested acres are burning, annually and globally, while global aquifers are being privatized and locked down from most of humanity. Depopulation was always part and parcel of the original plan by globalism’s authors, and certainly a mass die-off of humanity cannot appear as genocide or democide in a mass-media whistleblowing world, not when the orchestrators are so terribly few, but a left-right punch from global catastrophic “events”, especially ones we choose to ignore with our best ignorance, could be our undoing.

When we choose to ignore Fukushima and allow governments to ignore mass-extinction “events”, and when we steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we are sprayed like insects for 35+ years, seeing it above our heads for days and weeks on end, because we “don’t want to think about it,” well…maybe we prove what elites have always believed, that we are “useless”, “ignorant”, “costly”, and “too common” for their many bottom lines.

As history has demonstrated century after century after century, when there are too many poor people, human culling occurs, which means they are murdered.

I fear history, once again, is upon us. When whales, dolphins, deer and trillions of other animals and mammals and plants are biting the dust and all at the same time, we’re next…especially because we eat these plants and animals, actually resulting in a third-whammy to humankind. Truth is, folks, we are being in-toxic-acted from every direction humanly possible.

What is happening to the world is not an accident.

We are getting hit from all angles.

(Nancy Levant) Something is far beyond contaminated and glow-fishy about the Fukushima meltdown. For two years it has been discussed and swarming with expertise, but with no limiting or actual efforts to stop the radiological contaminants from being released into the Pacific and all other connected oceans, the largest food and oxygen sources on the planet. Yet, surfers are surfing, swimmers are swimming, children are playing on beaches, and restaurants all over the earth are eating Pacific fish and also contaminated Atlantic fish according to multiple reports.
Also never actually disclosed or addressed is that perhaps as many as 1500 nukes have been tested in the world’s oceans, which also might have produced “contamination” since nuclear pollution doesn’t ever really go away. So, at this juncture I ask myself, where is the left hand and what might it be doing? Politics, as we know, has new meaning in the global world of corporate-political elites. Their political intentions were always based in deceptions from the earliest planning stages to today, for one hundred if not two hundred years. The UN Agenda 21 blueprint has never been fully disclosed in truth or in the open.
The 47 U.S. Biosphere Reserves are still completely under the veil for 90% of American people who have still never heard of them; same with the World Heritage Sites, and they are totally in the dark regarding the 620+ global reserves. Stratospheric Aerial Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (chemtrailing) are only just now kind of/sort of acknowledged as “possibly” damaging the planet for 35 years or more as well as the super-secret global HAARP facilities, which happen to super-heat the atmosphere, while aerial spraying traps the “warming” on the ground beneath the artificial, metallized, and very noxious and debilitating clouds and haze that laid across the skies, globally. And suddenly, we have another global crisis, publicized, with people sick, dying badly, and with sea life really, really sick and dying, and with worsening news and contamination pouring into the Pacific every day. Instead, a handful of “experts” are studying, having meetings and press conferences, pondering, coordinating thoughts and ideas, kicking the dirt, etc., etc. What we are witnessing is political theater.
The problem is we, too, are getting sicker and sicker. Fukushima is, after all, not just an oceanic problem. Radioactive ocean water evaporates and rains down…on everything…over the entire planet, and it just so happens that the nano-particulates of aluminum, barium, strontium and other concoctions sprayed from jets and commercial planes, globally, also rain down, blow in the wind…nano-sized mind you…which means their ingredients are wholly and completely unavoidable. Even your N95 masks, coats, gloves, hats and safety glasses cannot protect you, and these nano-particles are in your homes, your cars, all over your children, stores, pets, possessions, lawns, trees, forests, in all watershed systems, and all over the nation and world’s crop fields (think Monsanto “aluminum resistant” seeds). Consider well the over 1400 global seed vaults.
I fear we are experiencing a double-whammy. I am also thinking that a “global” crisis or crises are forthcoming, which will put “global” power centers front and center and in full-force all over the entire world. I equally think that global health may be collapsing as we speak, as global nature is demonstrating. Billions of fish and sea creatures dying, billions of birds, hundreds of trillions of insects and amphibians, and even large sea and forest mammals, far larger than human beings, are dying all around the world…and badly.
Hundreds of millions of forested acres are burning, annually and globally, while global aquifers are being privatized and locked down from most of humanity. Depopulation was always part and parcel of the original plan by globalism’s authors, and certainly a mass die-off of humanity cannot appear as genocide or democide in a mass-media whistleblowing world, not when the orchestrators are so terribly few, but a left-right punch from global catastrophic “events”, especially ones we choose to ignore with our best ignorance, could be our undoing. When we choose to ignore Fukushima and allow governments to ignore mass-extinction “events”, and when we steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we are sprayed like insects for 35+ years, seeing it above our heads for days and weeks on end, because we “don’t want to think about it,” well…maybe we prove what elites have always believed, that we are “useless”, “ignorant”, “costly”, and “too common” for their many bottom lines. As history has demonstrated century after century after century, when there are too many poor people, human culling occurs, which means they are murdered.
I fear history, once again, is upon us. When whales, dolphins, deer and trillions of other animals and mammals and plants are biting the dust and all at the same time, we’re next…especially because we eat these plants and animals, actually resulting in a third-whammy to humankind. Truth is, folks, we are being in-toxic-acted from every direction humanly possible. What is happening to the world is not an accident. We are getting hit from all angles.

---

- See more at: http://govtslaves.info/global-elite-political-theater/#sthash.mGJ7Ilrr.dpuf

(Nancy Levant) Something is far beyond contaminated and glow-fishy about the Fukushima meltdown. For two years it has been discussed and swarming with expertise, but with no limiting or actual efforts to stop the radiological contaminants from being released into the Pacific and all other connected oceans, the largest food and oxygen sources on the planet. Yet, surfers are surfing, swimmers are swimming, children are playing on beaches, and restaurants all over the earth are eating Pacific fish and also contaminated Atlantic fish according to multiple reports.
Also never actually disclosed or addressed is that perhaps as many as 1500 nukes have been tested in the world’s oceans, which also might have produced “contamination” since nuclear pollution doesn’t ever really go away. So, at this juncture I ask myself, where is the left hand and what might it be doing? Politics, as we know, has new meaning in the global world of corporate-political elites. Their political intentions were always based in deceptions from the earliest planning stages to today, for one hundred if not two hundred years. The UN Agenda 21 blueprint has never been fully disclosed in truth or in the open.
The 47 U.S. Biosphere Reserves are still completely under the veil for 90% of American people who have still never heard of them; same with the World Heritage Sites, and they are totally in the dark regarding the 620+ global reserves. Stratospheric Aerial Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (chemtrailing) are only just now kind of/sort of acknowledged as “possibly” damaging the planet for 35 years or more as well as the super-secret global HAARP facilities, which happen to super-heat the atmosphere, while aerial spraying traps the “warming” on the ground beneath the artificial, metallized, and very noxious and debilitating clouds and haze that laid across the skies, globally. And suddenly, we have another global crisis, publicized, with people sick, dying badly, and with sea life really, really sick and dying, and with worsening news and contamination pouring into the Pacific every day. Instead, a handful of “experts” are studying, having meetings and press conferences, pondering, coordinating thoughts and ideas, kicking the dirt, etc., etc. What we are witnessing is political theater.
The problem is we, too, are getting sicker and sicker. Fukushima is, after all, not just an oceanic problem. Radioactive ocean water evaporates and rains down…on everything…over the entire planet, and it just so happens that the nano-particulates of aluminum, barium, strontium and other concoctions sprayed from jets and commercial planes, globally, also rain down, blow in the wind…nano-sized mind you…which means their ingredients are wholly and completely unavoidable. Even your N95 masks, coats, gloves, hats and safety glasses cannot protect you, and these nano-particles are in your homes, your cars, all over your children, stores, pets, possessions, lawns, trees, forests, in all watershed systems, and all over the nation and world’s crop fields (think Monsanto “aluminum resistant” seeds). Consider well the over 1400 global seed vaults.
I fear we are experiencing a double-whammy. I am also thinking that a “global” crisis or crises are forthcoming, which will put “global” power centers front and center and in full-force all over the entire world. I equally think that global health may be collapsing as we speak, as global nature is demonstrating. Billions of fish and sea creatures dying, billions of birds, hundreds of trillions of insects and amphibians, and even large sea and forest mammals, far larger than human beings, are dying all around the world…and badly.
Hundreds of millions of forested acres are burning, annually and globally, while global aquifers are being privatized and locked down from most of humanity. Depopulation was always part and parcel of the original plan by globalism’s authors, and certainly a mass die-off of humanity cannot appear as genocide or democide in a mass-media whistleblowing world, not when the orchestrators are so terribly few, but a left-right punch from global catastrophic “events”, especially ones we choose to ignore with our best ignorance, could be our undoing. When we choose to ignore Fukushima and allow governments to ignore mass-extinction “events”, and when we steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we are sprayed like insects for 35+ years, seeing it above our heads for days and weeks on end, because we “don’t want to think about it,” well…maybe we prove what elites have always believed, that we are “useless”, “ignorant”, “costly”, and “too common” for their many bottom lines. As history has demonstrated century after century after century, when there are too many poor people, human culling occurs, which means they are murdered.
I fear history, once again, is upon us. When whales, dolphins, deer and trillions of other animals and mammals and plants are biting the dust and all at the same time, we’re next…especially because we eat these plants and animals, actually resulting in a third-whammy to humankind. Truth is, folks, we are being in-toxic-acted from every direction humanly possible. What is happening to the world is not an accident. We are getting hit from all angles.

---

- See more at: http://govtslaves.info/global-elite-political-theater/#sthash.mGJ7Ilrr.dpuf

(Nancy Levant) Something is far beyond contaminated and glow-fishy about the Fukushima meltdown. For two years it has been discussed and swarming with expertise, but with no limiting or actual efforts to stop the radiological contaminants from being released into the Pacific and all other connected oceans, the largest food and oxygen sources on the planet. Yet, surfers are surfing, swimmers are swimming, children are playing on beaches, and restaurants all over the earth are eating Pacific fish and also contaminated Atlantic fish according to multiple reports.
Also never actually disclosed or addressed is that perhaps as many as 1500 nukes have been tested in the world’s oceans, which also might have produced “contamination” since nuclear pollution doesn’t ever really go away. So, at this juncture I ask myself, where is the left hand and what might it be doing? Politics, as we know, has new meaning in the global world of corporate-political elites. Their political intentions were always based in deceptions from the earliest planning stages to today, for one hundred if not two hundred years. The UN Agenda 21 blueprint has never been fully disclosed in truth or in the open.
The 47 U.S. Biosphere Reserves are still completely under the veil for 90% of American people who have still never heard of them; same with the World Heritage Sites, and they are totally in the dark regarding the 620+ global reserves. Stratospheric Aerial Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (chemtrailing) are only just now kind of/sort of acknowledged as “possibly” damaging the planet for 35 years or more as well as the super-secret global HAARP facilities, which happen to super-heat the atmosphere, while aerial spraying traps the “warming” on the ground beneath the artificial, metallized, and very noxious and debilitating clouds and haze that laid across the skies, globally. And suddenly, we have another global crisis, publicized, with people sick, dying badly, and with sea life really, really sick and dying, and with worsening news and contamination pouring into the Pacific every day. Instead, a handful of “experts” are studying, having meetings and press conferences, pondering, coordinating thoughts and ideas, kicking the dirt, etc., etc. What we are witnessing is political theater.
The problem is we, too, are getting sicker and sicker. Fukushima is, after all, not just an oceanic problem. Radioactive ocean water evaporates and rains down…on everything…over the entire planet, and it just so happens that the nano-particulates of aluminum, barium, strontium and other concoctions sprayed from jets and commercial planes, globally, also rain down, blow in the wind…nano-sized mind you…which means their ingredients are wholly and completely unavoidable. Even your N95 masks, coats, gloves, hats and safety glasses cannot protect you, and these nano-particles are in your homes, your cars, all over your children, stores, pets, possessions, lawns, trees, forests, in all watershed systems, and all over the nation and world’s crop fields (think Monsanto “aluminum resistant” seeds). Consider well the over 1400 global seed vaults.
I fear we are experiencing a double-whammy. I am also thinking that a “global” crisis or crises are forthcoming, which will put “global” power centers front and center and in full-force all over the entire world. I equally think that global health may be collapsing as we speak, as global nature is demonstrating. Billions of fish and sea creatures dying, billions of birds, hundreds of trillions of insects and amphibians, and even large sea and forest mammals, far larger than human beings, are dying all around the world…and badly.
Hundreds of millions of forested acres are burning, annually and globally, while global aquifers are being privatized and locked down from most of humanity. Depopulation was always part and parcel of the original plan by globalism’s authors, and certainly a mass die-off of humanity cannot appear as genocide or democide in a mass-media whistleblowing world, not when the orchestrators are so terribly few, but a left-right punch from global catastrophic “events”, especially ones we choose to ignore with our best ignorance, could be our undoing. When we choose to ignore Fukushima and allow governments to ignore mass-extinction “events”, and when we steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we are sprayed like insects for 35+ years, seeing it above our heads for days and weeks on end, because we “don’t want to think about it,” well…maybe we prove what elites have always believed, that we are “useless”, “ignorant”, “costly”, and “too common” for their many bottom lines. As history has demonstrated century after century after century, when there are too many poor people, human culling occurs, which means they are murdered.
I fear history, once again, is upon us. When whales, dolphins, deer and trillions of other animals and mammals and plants are biting the dust and all at the same time, we’re next…especially because we eat these plants and animals, actually resulting in a third-whammy to humankind. Truth is, folks, we are being in-toxic-acted from every direction humanly possible. What is happening to the world is not an accident. We are getting hit from all angles.

---

- See more at: http://govtslaves.info/global-elite-political-theater/#sthash.mGJ7Ilrr.dpuf

Is Monsanto Using 4-H to Brainwash Your Children About GMOs?

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto is boasting its partnership with 4-H programs by giving a shout-out to “National 4-H Week.”¹

This is not the first time Monsanto has used its clever propaganda to influence our nation’s youth. The Council for Biotechnology Information widely circulated a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, a disturbing and brightly colored obvious intent to 'educate' the children.

4-H is the country’s largest youth organization with more than 6 million members in 80 countries around the world, involving children from elementary school age through high school.

The organization is extremely influential to children, impacting their intellectual and emotional development through their numerous programs and clubs. Unfortunately, Monsanto is using its partnership with 4-H as a vehicle to worm its way into your child’s mind in order to influence her developing beliefs and values.

Children are like little sponges, soaking up everything they see and hear, which makes them particularly vulnerable to being sucked in by propaganda.
And the effects could be life-long—at least they’re intended to be. Indeed you’d be hard-pressed to convince an adult, who from childhood was taught the merits of genetically engineered foods, that there’s anything wrong with such alterations of the food supply.  

If your child is involved in 4-H, it would be wise to monitor the messages she’s getting, given this organization’s  corporate sponsors and alliances.

4-H is really the perfect vehicle for Big Ag to manipulate an entire generation, using tactics not that different from the youth indoctrination strategies employed by political extremists in order to gain children’s trust and then “groom” them however they wish.

Think about it—what better way to control the future of our food system than to brainwash 6.8 million impressionable youth into believing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe and beneficial, if not the answer to all the problems of the world?²

4-H Volunteers are Being Trained by Monsanto

The 4-H Youth Development Organization was originally set up by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to train the rural youth of America in hands-on skills like agriculture and raising animals, including the promotion of responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way.

The 4-H emblem, a four-leaf clover, is supposed to symbolize four actions (head, hands, heart, and health) as stated in their pledge:

“I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world.”

However, as noble as their original vision is, it remains vulnerable to the influences of its funders. Just as the USDA and other government agencies have a carefully crafted and well established revolving door arrangement with industry, 4-H is increasingly in the grips of the corporations that fund it—specifically, the agricultural, biotech, and junk food industries.

According to its 2012 Annual Report,³ 4-H’s funding comes from a long list of donors that include Monsanto, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cargill, DuPont, United Soybean Board, Coca-Cola, and Pfizer. It doesn’t take much imagination to predict what sort of agenda 4-H would need to promote to keep its donors happy.

Pro-GMO propaganda would be easy to weave into 4-H’s program since they already occupy the role of teaching children the art of farming, and in their position of authority, children would never question it. Monsanto is now also training tens of thousands of 4-H volunteers, according to an article in 4-Traders:

“In 2007, Monsanto expanded its 4-H volunteerism support by funding state and regional development. More than 52,600 volunteers have attended Monsanto-supported forums and training events in 50 states, three US territories and four Extension regional forums.”

Monsanto Hijacks Government, Education and Science

Corporations like Monsanto are employing increasingly underhanded strategies to spread their self-serving propaganda across broader segments of society. Here are three prime examples:

• Hijacking Government Regulators: Conflicts of interest are rampant in government agencies, which have a revolving door with US federal regulatory agencies like the USDA, FDA, and EPA.
• Hijacking Higher Education: An ever-increasing percentage of funding for research at land grant universities now comes from private corporations, giving big companies a stronger foothold than ever in higher education. Corporations wield power over educational institutions by giving college leaders positions on their corporate boards, and by hiring scientists as paid consultants. As a result, academic freedom has gone out the window, conflicts of interest are rampant, and bias eclipses objectivity.
• Hijacking the Media: Organizations such as Science Media Centre and American Council on Science and Health feature scientific “experts” that are anything but independent, and have undisclosed and far-reaching affiliations with the biotech industry.

Of course, if you are a large corporation trying to control the food supply, the younger you Consider the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids, circulated by CBI (Council for Biotechnology Information).⁴ Its colorful pages and friendly cartoon characters spew outright lies about the “benefits” of genetic engineering for health, environment, world hunger and the future of farming.

Monsanto is one of eight biotech companies behind the release of this 16-page children’s activity book, demonstrating just how low it will stoop. CBI claims to promote science-based information but is really just a shill for the biotech industry, for the purpose of advancing the pro-GMO agenda.  Brainwashing children is a new low, even for Monsanto. They’re not satisfied with just poisoning our children’s bodies—now they’re trying to poison their minds as well. And history is quite clear about how easy it is to poison the minds of the young.

Hijacking the Minds of Our Youth

It is difficult to ignore the parallels when looking at how 4-H, the largest American youth organization, is being hijacked by big biotech corporations to fulfill an agenda—the worldwide takeover by GMOs. But when you consider that Monsanto has no problem with poisoning our children, destroying farmers, polluting oceans, and ruining the earth’s topsoil, it seems there is no limit to their avarice.

If the Nazi analogy seems far-fetched, consider that the German people would have felt the same way before they realized what was happening to them. These manipulations can be masterful and insidious. The best way to protect your child from corporate brainwashing is with YOUR watchful eye.

If corporations like Monsanto are successful in hijacking the minds of our youth, they will essentially be in control the decisions and behavior of the next generation—and there is nothing to stop them until a great deal of damage is done to you, your children and grandchildren, and our planet. This is why it is so critical for you to be involved in your children’s activities and take an active role in their education.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that, just because they are involved with a “reputable” organization like 4-H, that they are getting unbiased and truthful information.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State - to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as certified organics do not permit GMO’s. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks.

Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole.

All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Beaver Anal Secretions In Natural Flavors?

Yes, it's true. Millions of people across the globe are eating "beaver butt" and don't even know  that they're consuming such a substance. It's called "castoreum," and it's emitted from the castor sacs within the animal's anus.  For a beaver, this slimy brown substance is used to mark its territory, but for us  humans, it's used as an additive that is often labeled as "natural flavoring" in  the foods we eat - vanilla, strawberry and raspberry probably being the most  common. Why is castoreum used? The most notable characteristic (after being processed) has  to be  the smell of castoreum. Instead of smelling horrible, like most people would  expect from an  anally produced secretion, it has a pleasant scent, which supposedly  makes it a perfect candidate  for food flavoring and other products. The question that many people put forth would have to be "who in their right mind  actually made this odd discovery?" Another industry that utilizes castoreum is the fragrance world. For decades, perfume manufactures have been using it to make various types of fragrances. These anal  secretions are said to contain around  24 different molecules, many of which act as  natural pheromones. From perfumes to air fresheners,  castor sacs are quite versatile within the fragrance industry. Is it natural? Sure it's natural, but does "being natural" make it right to use or consume? Many disgusting substances are considered "natural," yet eating them may not be the best idea. The act of labeling something so vulgar and disgusting as "natural flavoring," should be illegal in many people's eyes, but the FDA views it all in a different light. Having the anal secretions from a beaver take the place of a strawberry in something  like strawberry ice cream hardly seems like an efficient process. Why go through the process  of harvesting "anal secretions" when a strawberry is much easier to pick? It hardly seems like a better option... The food industry is a tricky business to figure out, and it will continue to boggle the minds of  many on issues exactly like this. Much like with other additives that have raised concern over  the years (aspartame, high fructose corn syrup and food colorings), castoreum is proving to be  just as questionable. It's the deceptive labeling that seems to be the root of the problem. Instead of stating what  castoreum truly is, the FDA has allowed it to be labeled as something that sounds pleasant  and healthy. As with many questionable additives in today's food market, the power lies within the people.  Read your labels thoroughly if you wish to subtract these types of ingredients from your diet. In all honesty, castoreum is probably safe to consume, being that is derived from an animal,  but who\really wants to eat a beaver's anus? For further information on castoreum, be sure to check out the sources section below. Sources for this article include: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov http://beauty.about.com http://www.encyclopedia.com MORE INFO:  But the anal sacs are removed from beavers raised for their fur; it’s the second most valuable part of the animal.    Food use In the United States, castoreum is considered to be a GRAS food additive by the Food and Drug Administration.[10] It is often referenced simply as a "natural flavoring" in products ' lists of ingredients. While it is mainly used in both foods and beverages as part of a substitute vanilla  flavour,[11] it is less commonly used as a part of a raspberry or strawberry flavoring.[12] The annual industry consumption is very low, around 300 pounds,[13] whereas vanillin is over 2.6 million pounds annually.[14]

Monsanto Buys Food Prize

As Lily Tomlin has noted, "No matter how cynical you get, it's almost impossible to keep up."
For example, imagine if a prestigious group announced that this year's "World Environmental Prize" is being awarded to BP, for its unique contribution to the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. No way, you say? Too absurd?

Right, but try this one: Imagine that an Iowa group announces that its "World Food Prize" will go to Monsanto for pushing its patented, pricey, genetically-tampered Frankenseeds on impoverished lands as an "answer" to global hunger. This would be so morally perverse that the "cyn" in cynical would be spelled s.i.n.

Yet, it has actually happened.

Rather than encouraging sustainable farming and self-sufficiency in impoverished communities as a way to alleviate poverty and malnutrition around the world, this year's World Food Prize has been "won" by a profiteering, biotech, seed-and-chemical monopolist that's the freakish opposite of sustainability.

 Monsanto, which owns 90 percent of the world's genetically modified seeds, is globally infamous for bullying family farmers, bribing and corrupting governments, stiffing independent scientific inquiries into its hokum, running false ads and fraudulent PR campaigns, and going all out to keep consumers from knowing that the crops produced by its seeds contain alien, bioengineered DNA and have not been tested for long-term health and environmental problems.

Why would this avaricious outfit get any sort of award, much less one that can give it a false legitimacy as a corporate "savior" for the world's poor? Perhaps because Monsanto is a major funder of the World Food Prize. Indeed, the foundation that hands out the award is headquartered in downtown Des Moines in a historic building that recently got a spiffy remodeling, thanks to a $5 million donation from — you guessed it — Monsanto. The corporate honoree has also been a steady donor to the food prize foundation, giving some $400,000 to its promotion of industrial agribusiness in the last dozen years.

It was my privilege to go to Des Moines last week for Monsanto's World Food Prize extravaganza. Well, I didn't exactly get into the ceremony where the halo was being fitted on this predatory proliferator of proprietary GMO seeds. In fact, I wasn't even allowed to enter the Monsanto-financed edifice, wasn't invited to sip sauvignon blanc at the Rockefeller reception on the patio, and didn't get to mingle with the corporate, political, and foundation backscratchers at the official hullabaloo.

Rather, I was down the street at the graceful First United Methodist Church, where more than 500 of us scruffy "outsiders" gathered in protest of the Monsanto absurdity. There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the myriad of abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.

One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could've used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the farm bill. Instead, Monsanto didn't lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country. It doesn't care at all about feeding the world, he said with disgust, it cares about profits, period.

Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referring to in May, when he declared: "The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal." How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this food prize for itself in order to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world's poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its altered seed.

The World Food Prize Foundation has grandly dubbed its award "The Nobel Prize for Agriculture." But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-Culture. It is the agri-Business face of the cult of money that Francis warned about — and it has turned this award into the "Ignoble Prize."

Copyright Creators.com

Big Meat Imitates Big Tobacco in Fighting the Public's Right to Know

Eight meatpacking industry groups recently sued to stop implementation of the popular Country of Origin Label (COOL) law (supported by 93 percent of Americans) that was passed back in 2008.

Proceeding from the commonsense notion (and economic principle) that in a free market, buyers should have access to sufficient information to make educated choices, the law required retailers to tell customers the country of origin of a variety of foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts.

 I might not know where all the pieces of my cell phone were made—and there are serious issues with that—but I don't plan to eat my phone. Why shouldn’t I be able to know where my food comes from? 
The big meat companies have objected the loudest to COOL.
 Canadian and Mexican meat groups took the U.S. to court at the World Trade Organization (WTO) when the USDA first announced its regulations for implementing COOL, charging that the rules would discriminate against them, and they won. To the Obama Administration’s credit, they issued a revised rule that actually strengthened COOL, requiring more detail about where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. The current suit is intended to block the revised regulations that were issued this spring in response to the WTO ruling.

Big Meat’s argument?

The law violates their right to free speech, by compelling them to provide information that they would not provide voluntarily. This is the same argument a coalition of tobacco companies used when they sued to block enhanced warning label requirements on cigarette packages.

 The Supreme Court has traditionally made a distinction between political speech, which is strictly protected by the Constitution, and commercial speech, (intended to “propose a commercial transaction”) but as the Court has become more and more friendly to their interests, corporations are getting increasingly aggressive in asserting their new-found rights.

And the right to keep us in the dark is among them. Big Meat wants us to believe, as their legal complaint states, that “beef is beef, whether the steer or heifer was born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán. The same goes for hogs, chickens, and other livestock.”

Whether or not this absurd argument holds up in court, (the first hearing will be August 27) it’s not the only legal tactic Big Meat could borrow from Big Tobacco. Two massive international trade and investment agreements currently under negotiation would grant corporations something that might best be termed the Right to Profit.

The Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) mechanism grants corporations the right to sue national governments in a private trade court for any government action that interferes with the investor’s expected profits. ISDR has already been built into a number of bilateral agreements, so we know what it means in practice. Perhaps most relevant to food labeling is the case of Phillip Morris v. Uruguay. In 2010, the tobacco giant used ISDR to bring a $2 billion suit against the government of Uruguay for enacting new regulations that would require prominent health warnings on cigarette packs. This particular case has not been decided yet, but in 2012, the plaintiffs won 70 percent of such ISDR cases.

Time and time again trade rules strengthen the hand of multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. The implications for food labeling could not be clearer. More and more people around the world are demanding their right to know about what they’re eating—whether through labeling GMOs and other ingredients, COOL or other labeling schemes. We need to let Congress and the President know that trade rules and laws must reflect the public interest, not the right of secrecy for big corporations.

Eight meatpacking industry groups recently sued to stop implementation of the popular Country of Origin Label (COOL) law (supported by 93 percent of Americans) that was passed back in 2008.
Proceeding from the commonsense notion (and economic principle) that in a free market, buyers should have access to sufficient information to make educated choices, the law required retailers to tell customers the country of origin of a variety of foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts. I might not know where all the pieces of my cell phone were made—and there are serious issues with that—but I don't plan to eat my phone. Why shouldn’t I be able to know where my food comes from?
The big meat companies have objected the loudest to COOL. Canadian and Mexican meat groups took the U.S. to court at the World Trade Organization (WTO) when the USDA first announced its regulations for implementing COOL, charging that the rules would discriminate against them, and they won. To the Obama Administration’s credit, they issued a revised rule that actually strengthened COOL, requiring more detail about where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. The current suit is intended to block the revised regulations that were issued this spring in response to the WTO ruling.
Big Meat’s argument? The law violates their right to free speech, by compelling them to provide information that they would not provide voluntarily. This is the same argument a coalition of tobacco companies used when they sued to block enhanced warning label requirements on cigarette packages. The Supreme Court has traditionally made a distinction between political speech, which is strictly protected by the Constitution, and commercial speech, (intended to “propose a commercial transaction”) but as the Court has become more and more friendly to their interests, corporations are getting increasingly aggressive in asserting their new-found rights. And the right to keep us in the dark is among them. Big Meat wants us to believe, as their legal complaint states, that “beef is beef, whether the steer or heifer was born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán. The same goes for hogs, chickens, and other livestock.”
Whether or not this absurd argument holds up in court, (the first hearing will be August 27) it’s not the only legal tactic Big Meat could borrow from Big Tobacco. Two massive international trade and investment agreements currently under negotiation would grant corporations something that might best be termed the Right to Profit. The Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) mechanism grants corporations the right to sue national governments in a private trade court for any government action that interferes with the investor’s expected profits. ISDR has already been built into a number of bilateral agreements, so we know what it means in practice. Perhaps most relevant to food labeling is the case of Phillip Morris v. Uruguay. In 2010, the tobacco giant used ISDR to bring a $2 billion suit against the government of Uruguay for enacting new regulations that would require prominent health warnings on cigarette packs. This particular case has not been decided yet, but in 2012, the plaintiffs won 70 percent of such ISDR cases.
Time and time again trade rules strengthen the hand of multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. The implications for food labeling could not be clearer. More and more people around the world are demanding their right to know about what they’re eating—whether through labeling GMOs and other ingredients, COOL or other labeling schemes. We need to let Congress and the President know that trade rules and laws must reflect the public interest, not the right of secrecy for big corporations.
- See more at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201308/big-meat-imitates-big-tobacco-in-fighting-the-public%E2%80%99s-right-to-know#sthash.XlnMJnzD.dpuf

GMO Seeds: Fueling the Health of Corporations

• By Organic Consumers Association
  August 21, 2013
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.

Numbers don’t lie.  Over the past 20 years, America’s seeds, animal feed and biofuels have been infiltrated like a virus by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary winners in this game of genetic roulette have been the profit margins of the world’s largest biotech, pesticide and agrochemical companies.
More than 40 percent of all U.S. cropland is devoted to GMO crops. Yet even though nearly 80 percent of processed foods sold in the U.S. now contain GMOs, the majority of genetically engineered (GE) crops aren’t grown to feed humans. The bulk of today’s GE soybeans and corn in particular, are used to feed animals and generate biofuels.

Americans consume 193 pounds of GMOs annually. And the animals that provide us with nearly all the meat, poultry and dairy we eat are force fed GE crops their  bodies were never designed to process.

Who’s getting healthy on GMOs? Not the American people, whose health has declined since GMOs were introduced into our food. Not American farmers, whose numbers have dropped precipitously since agribusiness has taken over our farmland. And not the billions of animals being pumped full of antibiotics to stave off illnesses associated with confinement and GMO feed.

No, the only ones getting healthy are the four largest pesticide, agrochemical and biotech companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta – whose sales have jumped from $60.1 billion in 2004 to $119.3 billion in 2012.

America’s Growing GMO Seed Dependence
404 million: Approximate number of acres of U.S. cropland.

172 million: Number of acres of GMO crops in the U.S., nearly double its nearest competitor (Brazil at 90 million).

94: Percentage of U.S. soy crops that currently contain GMOs.

54: Percentage of U.S. soybeans in 2000 that contained GMOs, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996

90: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contain GMOs.

61: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contained GMOs in 2000, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996.

88:  Percentage of U.S. corn crops that contain GMOs.

25: Percentage of U.S. corn containing GMOs in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996.

90: Percentage of U.S. canola crops that contain GMOs.

95: Percentage of U.S. sugar beet crops that contain GMOs.

57: Percentage of American sugar production that comes from sugar beets.

GMOs: Fueling our Factory Farms and Automobiles
98: Percentage of U.S. GMO soy used for animal feed and fuel production (~70% to feed and ~25% to biofuels).

71: Percentage of U.S. GMO corn that is used for animal feed (40%) and fuel production (31%).

Approximately 67: Percentage of world’s GMO canola seed oil used in animal feed.

12.2 million: Number of hectares of GMO crops (nearly 10 percent of the global total) used in the U.S. for biofuels in 2008.

The Winners: Biotech, Agrochemical and Pesticide Industries
$13.5 billion: Monsanto’s net sales in 2012 (largest biotech seed company in the world), up from $5.5 billion in 2004.

$34.8 billion: Dupont’s net sales in 2012, up from $8 billion.

$56.8 billion: Dow Chemical’s net sales in 2012, up from $40.1 billion.

$14.2 billion: Syngenta’s net sales in 2012, up from $7.3 billion in 2004.

Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.

13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents are Recycling in Washington State

• By Zack Kaldveer
  Organic Consumers Association, August 21, 2013
  
  

It’s déjà vu all over again. Last year a coalition of out-of-state, multinational biotech, pesticide and junk food corporations spent nearly $46 million to narrowly defeat Proposition 37, California's GMO Labeling Initiative.

Now, the same who’s who of the world’s most notorious global corporate bad actors has descended on Washington State. Why? To try to stop Washington State voters from passing I-522, a citizens’ initiative that, if passed, will require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all food products sold in Washington State.

Like bad robots, they’re spitting out the same old, tired lies, designed to scare voters into voting against their own best interests.

Here are the lies. And the facts. Please read, print, email, roll up and stuff into a bottle you launch into the sea . . . whatever it takes to spread the word that while $46 million may buy a lot of lies, it doesn’t change the facts.

Lie: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Truth: Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European Union labeled GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been "no resulting increase in grocery costs."

Trader Joe’s, Clif Bar & Co. and Washington’s own PCC Natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

Lie: I-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.

Truth: I-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. I-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law:

•     Restaurants – Restaurants and bake sales are not required to list the ingredients in their products. Requiring labeling for GMOs would have required tracking all the ingredients in restaurant meals, and since no other laws require that, it didn't make sense for this one to.
•     Meat, cheese, dairy and eggs from animals - These will be labeled if they come from genetically engineered animals. However, they are exempt if the animals ate genetically engineered feed but are not themselves genetically engineered. This exemption is common all around the world. It didn't make sense for Washington’s law to be stricter than international standards.
•     Alcohol – Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, alcohol couldn’t be included.

Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. 

 

According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label "organic" means that a product is GMO-free. 

 

Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

Lie: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion agricultural industry. 

Truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods.  Connecticut, Maine and Alaska have passed labeling laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. Besides, 64 countries already require labeling, so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports. In fact, many Washington farmers support labeling because they believe that growing GMO crops destroys healthy soil, and because they sell crops to overseas markets that either require labels on GMO crops, or have banned them completely. These countries are increasingly concerned about U.S. non-GMO crops, such as wheat, that could be potentially contaminated by cross-pollination with GMO crops.

Lie: I-522 encourages shakedown lawsuits by giving trial lawyers an unprecedented new right to sue farmers, food producers and store owners over the wording on food labels.

Truth: I-522 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. Consumers can't file a class action suit against food producers without first giving the food producer a warning and the opportunity to comply with the law. As long as the defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted. Once the class action option is off the table, a consumer could sue only to get a court order to require labeling, and only for the few dollars that consumer paid to buy the product. Where’s the incentive?

If the state brings a court action to enforce the new law, any penalties recovered by the state go only to the state - not the plaintiff or the lawyer. Food companies are required by law to label for ingredients, calories, etc., and there have been few violations. Why wouldn’t companies accurately label genetically engineered foods, too?

For the real story about abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers, check out what Monsanto is up to: suing farmers across the country for growing their own seeds.

Lie: Labeling GMOs creates a bureaucratic nightmare for grocers and retailers and requires the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores, costing taxpayers millions.

Truth: Under I-522, the person responsible for labeling processed foods is the person who puts the label on: the manufacturer. Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.

I-522 requires no costly testing for GE ingredients. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers while providing consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.

Lie: GE foods pose no health safety risks.

Truth: GMOs have never been proven safe. The FDA requires no pre-market health safety studies, and the only long term peer-reviewed animal study conducted involving GMO corn sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility. Clearly, more independent, long term studies are warranted. Until GMOs are proven unequivocally safe, they should be labeled so consumers can avoid them if they choose.

Lie: GE foods are as, or more, nutritious than organic foods.

Truth: Organic foods, especially raw or non-processed, contain higher levels of beta carotene, vitamins C, D and E, health-promoting polyphenols, cancer-fighting antioxidants, flavonoids that help ward off heart disease, essential fatty acids, and essential minerals. On average, organic is 25 percent more nutritious in terms of vitamins and minerals than products derived from industrial agriculture. Levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle are between 50 percent and 80 percent higher than normal milk. Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce have between 20 percent and 40 percent more nutrients than non-organic foods.

A report released from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada found GMO Corn has 14 parts-per-million (ppm) of Calcium while non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm, or 437 times more. According to the report, non-GMO corn also has 56 times more magnesium and seven times more manganese than GMO corn.

Lie: The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that GE foods are safe.

Truth: The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods, a standard the U.S. fails to meet. A National Academy of Sciences report states that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” Numerous public health and medical groups support the labeling of GE foods, including the American Public Health Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Breast Cancer Action, Allergy Kids Foundation, Autism One, and many others.

Lie: We need GMOs to feed the world.

Truth: Studies have proven that GE crops do not lead to greater crop yields. In fact, just the opposite is true. A 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found GMO crops fail to produce higher yields. And a recently released, peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.

Lie: The creation of GE seeds is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.

Truth: Cross breeding is the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are created in a laboratory using high-tech and sophisticated techniques. One of these techniques involves gene-splicing which is used to cross a virus or a bacteria with a plant. These untested, unnatural creations are the antithesis to what our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do: cross-pollinate different varieties of the same plant to help naturally bring forth desirable characteristics.

Lie: GE crops reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: GE crops have dramatically increased the use of herbicides and pesticides. According to a new study by Food and Water Watch, the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” with the overall pesticide use rising by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

The report follows another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook last year that found that overall pesticide use increased by 404 million pounds, or about 7%, from 1996 and 2011. The use of GE crops are now driving up the volume of toxic herbicides needed each year by about 25 percent.

Lie: GE crops aren’t harmful to the environment.

Truth: Besides polluting the environment with herbicides and pesticides, GE crops are leading to biodiversity loss and the emergence of “super bugs” and  “super weeds" that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, requiring the need for even more dangerous and toxic herbicides.

GE crops, and the toxic pesticides they are designed to withstand, are endangering numerous critical species, including the honey bee, frogs, birds, fish and the Monarch Butterfly.

And don’t forget our air and water. The island of Molokai in Hawaii has had its air and water quality destroyed by Monsanto’s almost-2000-acre test facility. The same is true worldwide, with many areas around GMO farms reporting horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.

 

NOTE:  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, consumers have far more power than any legislation.  Just stop buying and swallowing their garbage and even giant corporations fall if they don't provide what consumers will buy.  

Americans simply don't care enough yet to pay attention to their health, if enough voted against GMO false foods, they wouldn't fill our supermarket shelves.

3 Controversial Pipelines You've Never Heard Of

While the national debate remains largely focused on President Obama’s impending decision regarding the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, communities across the U.S. and Canada are grappling with the oil and gas industry’s rapidly expanding pipeline network — cutting through their backyards, threatening water supplies, and leaving them vulnerable to devastating spills.

As production booms in Alberta’s tar sands and fracking opens up vast oil and natural gas deposits around America, companies are increasingly desperate for new pipelines to get their product to market.

 “We’ve so narrowly focused on Keystone that a lot of these other projects aren’t getting the scrutiny they probably need,” said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust. 

He explains that as production skyrockets and companies look to cash in, no one is really in charge of it all. “We’re leaving it up to these individual companies to come up with their own solutions to figure out how to move energy and we don’t have any national policy guiding those decisions.”

According to a recent analysis of federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data, since 1986 there have been nearly 8,000 incidents, resulting in more than 500 deaths, more than 2,300 injuries, and nearly $7 billion in damage.
Here are three of the most recent pipeline controversies emerging around the country:

1. Bluegrass Pipeline

Land owners and protesters gather on the steps of the Kentucky state capitol to protest the Bluegrass Pipeline.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Dylan Lovan

Opposition is growing to the proposed 500-mile bluegrass pipeline, which would transport flammable natural gas liquids across Kentucky to an existing line that terminates in the Gulf. 

Landowners and environmentalists gathered at the state capital last week to protest the project, which they fear would threaten water supplies and safety. Residents were caught off guard by the project — landowner Stacie Meyer said she noticed survey markers going up near her property and had to search the internet and consult her neighbors to find out what they were for. 

Locals are concerned the company, Williams Co., could use imminent domain to seize the land if opposition proves too strong. As the Courier-Journal reported, “Brad Slutskin, a Woodford County landowner who spoke at the rally, said the pipeline companies are threatening condemnation based on a loose interpretation of Kentucky law, and most property owners don’t have the money to mount a court challenge.

” Residents opposed to the pipeline — including a group of nuns and monks who are refusing to give up their land for the project — delivered a petition with more than 5,200 signatures asking Gov. Beshear to include pipeline and eminent domain-related issues in the upcoming special legislative session, which he refused. 

“Knowing a pipeline is coming through, is like waiving a red flag to the creatures of the Earth. God created Earth as our land to use not abuse,” Sister Joetta Venneman told local WAVE News.

As the gas fields north and east of Kentucky boom, the state will likely find itself in the crosshairs of many battles to come. In fact, while the fifth Kentucky county was passing a resolution opposing the Bluegrass Pipeline on Wednesday, the Courier-Journal reported that the project may already have some competition — a joint venture to convert an existing natural gas line called the Tennessee Gas Pipeline.

2. Energy East Pipeline

Milo Zeankowski-Giffin, left, and Max Griefen hold signs during a Montpelier, VT tar sands pipeline protest.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Toby Talbot

Facing resistance in the U.S. over its Keystone XL proposal, TransCanada Corp. is moving forward with plans for another tar sands pipeline project that would carry almost as much crude as Keystone. The new pipeline, the most expensive in TransCanada’s history, would run from Alberta to the Atlantic seaboard, ending where a new deep-water marine terminal would be built to export the crude overseas.

 In early August, TransCanada said it received the long-term contracts for about 900,000 barrels of crude per day and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already indicated his support for the project.

TransCanada’s proposal has been met with stiff opposition from Canadian environmentalists and native leaders — particularly in Quebec, where Premier Pauline Marois has halted natural gas exploration while last month’s deadly Lac-Megantic crude oil train explosion is still being cleaned up. 

The $12 billion development plan calls for converting 1,864 miles of an existing, 55-year-old pipeline currently used for natural gas to carry the oil. Though the proposed route does not cross into the U.S., it does skirt the border with Maine. 

Perhaps most worrisome to residents of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, however, is that the increased shipping capacity from Alberta will impact another pipeline — the 70-year-old Portland Pipeline. Currently, the pipeline is used to ship crude into Canada but residents are concerned the flow will be reversed to bring Canadian tar sands into the U.S.

 As the Boston Globe explains, “this would provide Canada — whose Alberta-centered oil industry is suffering from too much supply and too little access to overseas markets — its first direct pipeline to a year-round, deep-water port.” Residents throughout New England are staunchly opposed to the region becoming a conduit for the dirtiest form of fossil fuel production, holding anti-pipeline demonstrations in Portland, while 29 Vermont communities passed resolutions banning tar sands oil from the state.

For now, residents of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are left with little option other than waiting to see how the Energy East pipeline development may impact the Portland Pipeline. In a statement released earlier this month, the company said, “It is uncertain to us what the entire impact of this proposed project might be on crude movements and crude supplies for the East Coast. We are continuing to evaluate this recent development.”

3. Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline Project

Keystone pipeline in yellow, Eastern in blue and red. Graphic credit: Paul Horn, InsideClimate News

Enbridge’s proposed 774-mile pipeline would run from Illinois to Louisiana and carry oil from North Dakota’s Bakken formation, as well as Canadian tar sands. The pipeline would be capable of transporting almost as much crude as Keystone XL and, as Inside Climate News reports, will likely sail through the regulatory process because much of the pipeline is already constructed as a natural gas line. 

“Converting pipelines makes [approval] easier and riskier, too,” explains Weimer. “Keystone is brand new, state of the art pipeline with its own set of problems. Enbridge on the other hand, is converting other pipelines that have already been in the ground for years — putting in new types of crude or switching natural gas to liquid on pipelines that aren’t built to today’s standards. Those old pipes being re-purposed certainly presents a new risk.”

While the Keystone decision is momentarily stalled, Eastern Gulf is just one of many new pipelines being built to ship North American oil to the Gulf Coast for refining and export. According to Inside Climate, “Enbridge plans to build thousands of miles of pipelines over the next few years, including an expansion of its Alberta Clipper pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin. If approved, that line would ship up to 880,000 barrels of Canadian crude into the United States each day, compared to the Keystone’s capacity of 830,000 barrels per day.”

Last month, all five members of Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission approved increasing the flow of the Alberta Clipper line while refusing concerned citizens the opportunity to testify publicly. The initial expansion still awaits approval from multiple government agencies but Enbridge already has its sights set on a second expansion, which wasn’t discussed at the meeting. The protesters, including several Native American representatives, fear their communities could soon face the same devastating impacts of tar sands development being felt in Alberta. Marty Cobenais of Bemidji, part of the Indigenous Environmental Network, told the Bemidji Pioneer that the pipeline is a major issue for his Red Lake community. “This is huge,” he said. “This is in our back yard.”

A worker cleans up oil in Mayflower, AR days after a pipeline ruptured and spewed oil over lawns and roadways.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Jeannie Nuss

These fights are just three of many being waged by citizens across the country. Alabama residents, for instance, have been protesting multiple pipeline projects — including the Plains All-American oil pipeline, which would run 41 miles to Mississippi and through a section of Mobile’s drinking water supply.

Though pipeline companies are seeking to capitalize on the Lac-Megantic tragedy to tout the safety of crude transport over rail, the devastating impacts of pipeline spills are impossible to overlook. Last week, the New York Times profiled two communities in Michigan and Arkansas that are forever changed by tar sands pipeline spills. Though it’s been three years since Enbridge’s pipeline rupture that spewed more than 840,000 gallons of tar sands crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the region is far from restored. And even despite EPA’s recent order for Exxon to dredge the river, an EPA spokeswoman estimated that 1620,000 gallons of oil will remain in the Kalamazoo.

And in March, an Exxon Mobil pipeline burst, spilling an estimated 210,000 gallons of crude into a Mayflower, Arkansas neighborhood. What’s left behind is bleak: “Four months later, the neighborhood of low-slung brick homes is largely deserted, a ghostly column of empty driveways and darkened windows, the silence broken only by the groan of heavy machinery pawing at the ground as remediation continues.” As Inside Climate News has continued to report, residents are now grappling with the long-term effects of the toxic spill, including the difficult process of relocating their families and the frightnening health complications that have begun to manifest. 

In addition to re-purposing old pipelines, there are several aspects of the unchecked expansion of fossil fuel pipelines across the country that has Weimer concerned. First, pipeline regulation needs to be strengthened and clarified.

 He explains that right now, “regulations are written in such a way that to a vast degree, it’s left up to the pipeline companies to figure out how safe their pipelines are and what to do about it.” And it’s not just oversight — planning future pipeline routes is also dictated by the companies themselves. “The way we leave it up to each company means we could have multiple pipelines from different companies moving [their products] through the same place. Each company is just trying to capitalize and make money. State and local government really hasn’t thought about it much — is unprepared — and pipelines will go into place before there are policies to guide the construction. It can really affect the way local communities may develop and often happens before the community has any sense of what they can do about it.”