Seeds of Death

The global launch of a second Green Revolution, spearheaded by genetic engineering and corrupt corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont, shows every sign of being as catastrophic as the first revolution. As the big agro-chemical complex morphs into one of the world’s most powerful lobbies, educating people about the dangers of genetically modified crops, or GMOs, and the growing threats of toxic intensive agriculture can hinder GMO’s domination of our food supply.

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, by award-winning documentary film director Gary Null, takes on the seed cartel’s propaganda and political influence to expose a fabric of lies and deceit now threatening the safety and life of every species. Predictably, GMOs will reduce sustainable agriculture and humanity’s ability to meet global food demands. GMOs are founded on a baseless science, originally approved through political maneuvering and disregard for human safety. Hundreds of scientific studies reveal GMOs’ serious health risks to animals and these same adverse conditions are rapidly observed in the epidemic rise of human diseases.

In addition to health risks, there is no evidence that GMOs will provide food security in the future. Industrial agriculture is dirty. It leaves a larger environmental greenhouse gas footprint compared to organic farming methods. It depends upon massive amounts of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and greater water resources. The result is soil devastation and lower crop yields.

Seeds of Death features the voices and warnings of our world’s most vital experts demanding the reassessment of GMOs, including Jeffrey Smith, Vandana Shiva, Ronnie Cummins, Shiv Chopra, Michael Antoniou, Rima Laibow, Bruce Lipton, Joseph Mercola, Arpad Pusztai, organic farmers, and others.

The film’s message is clear: the future of food security that relies upon GMOs will devastate the planet and create catastrophic health and food crises to the world population.

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • Odin

    Well done! Let’s do something. Hard to believe that there are people who can do such things, and still are able to sleep at night. Almost makes me think that this is a strategy thought up by people in power to deal with our number one problem (from which 99% of our other problems arise); Overpopulation…
    One thing made me laugh though;
    00:38:32 – “Here in the United States, the birthplace of democracy…”. Sums up American ignorance and arrogance to perfection.

  • Krissi

    This is the agenda of Michelle Obama right now right? The whole ‘food initiative’? Am I right? Farmers are getting it bad these days. Sticking to organic dairy and meat. Tysons already injects their chickens so they grow a full size in one month rather than the natural 3 months it normally takes. Gardening is back in style folks…

  • http://hyungnam.blogspot.kr/2013/06/web-design-tools-avatar-signature_63.html Hyungnam Gu

    There is general scientific agreement that food on the market from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food. A 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council found that “genetic engineering is not an inherently hazardous process,” but that all food, whether produced by genetic engineering or other methods such as controlled breeding, should be examined to see if the changes produce toxins or allergens. The report also stated “Adverse health effects from genetic engineering have not been documented in the human population, but the technique is new and concerns about its safety remain”. The report stated that methods of producing new foods in addition to genetic engineering including breeding, radiation, or chemicals can all lead to unwanted changes so that focusing on safety only on the method of breeding, such as genetically engineering, is “scientifically unjustified,” and called for assessment on a case-by-case basis for all foods produced by all such methods. The report recommended that particularly in cases when new substances or unusual nutrient profiles were detected, evaluation should continue after products are on the market, regardless of method of breeding, though barriers to such surveillance exist, such as the lack of methods to track such foods after entry to the marketplace and the consumers who consume them.

    Some medical and environmental groups claim that the potential long-term impact on human health have not been adequately assessed and propose mandatory labeling or a moratorium on such products. The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), disputes the claim of scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state whether GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment released a statement calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health. A 2011 study found maternal/fetal pesticide exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec. Gilles-Éric Séralini of the University of Caen, and his team reported that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage in 2012 in the Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.After reanalyses of the results, and the paper was retracted by the publisher, Elsevier, on the ground that the study consisted of a limited number of test samples (Sprague-Dawley rats) to make any conclusive evidence on the adverse effect of GM on the rats. Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumours even under normal conditions.Séralini defended his study and republished the same findings in Environmental Sciences Europe in 2014, published bySpringerOpen.