The Beautiful Truth: the film

The Beautiful Truth

Scheduled for release in New York City on November 14, 2008, The Beautiful Truth is a film documentary by award-winning producer Steve Kroschel.  This film highlights the link between health, diet, and environment.  I am honored to appear in the film, which features interviews with the researchers and physicians in the fields of food additives, genetically engineered food, mercury and fluoride toxicity, and how they related to the Gerson Therapy  From California-based distribution company Cinema Libre: 

Garrett is a 15-year old boy living in the Alaskan wilderness with a menagerie of orphaned animals. Growing up close with nature has given him a deep understanding of nutritional needs required by diet sensitive animals on the reserve.

Unfortunately, the untimely and tragic death of his mother sent him into a downward spiral and he was at risk of flunking out of school. This led to his father’s decision to to home-school Garrett. His first assignment was to study a controversial book written by Dr. Max Gerson, in which he claimed more than 50 years ago that diet could, and did, cure cancer.In The Beautiful Truth, Garrett goes on a mission to determine whether or not Dr. Gerson’s therapy is a legitimate, alternative cure.  After numerous interviews with doctors, researchers, skeptics, members of Gerson’s family and cancer patients themselves, it became abundantly clear that a cure for virtually all cancers and chronic diseases does exist — and has existed for over 80 years! Garrett’s mission now is to tell the world.

For those of you that are home-schooling parents or know others who are, please pass this information on or post it to your email newsgroups.

For more information about the film click here:   TBT Press Notes

Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers’ rights, and increase food safety. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate GMOs. Kucinich said:

We have a responsibility to put the public health and the environment before profits.  These bills spell out common sense precautions.

•H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with GM material. • H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that GE foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all GE foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption. • H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of GM crops on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from lawsuits by biotechnology companies.

Source: September 2008 The Organic & Non-GMO Report
Beth Harrison, author of award-winning Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

California legislature passes bill protecting farmers against Monsanto lawsuits

More good news from the US. This is a major step forward, considering California is the 8th largest economy in the world.A landmark piece of legislation protecting California‘s farmers from devastating lawsuits was passed through both legislative houses at the end of August.  Bill AB 541 is headed to the Governor’s desk for signature.  AB 541 is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered crops.

AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of their non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, particularly Monsanto. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies that are investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of farmers.

A copy of the bill can be downloaded at:


Mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk, and dangers of GM

Peter Melchette, director of the UK’s Soil Association, said in his article “Don’t believe the GM apologists” in The Independent on August 21:

Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders – fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertilizer or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.

The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root – but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat. GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry’s claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices – higher oil costs leading to higher fertilizer prices – also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertilizer to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.

Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) say there is no evidence that currently available genetically engineered crops strengthen drought tolerance or reduce fertilizer use. Nor do they increase crop yields.  According to Margaret Mellon, director of UCS’s Food and Environment Program in June/July issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report: 

Increased energy prices, harsh weather, and trade policies are largely to blame for the recent spike in food prices, none of which have much to do with crop breeding technologies.  The biotech industry’s claims about genetically altered crops are perennially overstated. In truth, agricultural biotechnology has almost nothing to offer to the world food crisis in the short term. Let’s be clear: There are no crops on the market today genetically engineered to directly maximize yields.  There are no crops on the market engineered to resist drought. And there are no crops on the market engineered to reduce fertilizer use. Not one.

In 2006, the USDA admitted that “currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential,” a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report which acknowledged that “GM crops can have reduced yields”. A recently published UN report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, concluded that GM crops do not have much to

Prince Charles warns of environmental disaster with GMOs

And if they think it’s somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another, then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.  —Prince Charles, speaking about the risks of genetically engineered foods.

Great Britain’s Prince Charles recently warned that companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster of all time.  In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Prince of Wales strongly denounced the development of GM crops, accusing biotech companies of conducting a “gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong.”

 Prince Charles also said that relying on “gigantic corporations” to mass produce food would result in “absolute disaster.”  He continued:

That would be the absolute destruction of everything…and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future.  What we should be talking about is food security not food production—that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.  If they think this is the way to go….we [will] end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of  unmentionable awfulness.

Prince Charles, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate, argued for more sustainable agriculture methods.

It’s not going backwards. It is actually recognizing that we are with nature, not against it. We have gone working against nature for too long.

Prince Charles’ comments come at a critical time, as there is intense pressure to develop more GM crops because of the world food crisis, despite the fact that GM crops have not been shown to produce more food.  Source: The Daily Telegraph as quoted in The Organic & Non-GMO Report

Patent Grab


In Geoffrey Lean’s article in The Independent, “Biotech Giants Demand a High Price for Saving the Planet: Companies Accused of Profiteering as They Attempt to Patent Crop Genes,” he found, through a Canadian organization’s report (ETC Group) that biotech companies are filing hundreds of monopoly patents on genes that help crops resist climate change.  The new investigation has concluded that nine biotech firms have filed at least 532 patents around the world on about 55 different genes offering protection against heat, drought, and floods.

If granted, the companies would be given control of crucial natural raw material needed to maintain food supplies in an increasingly hungry world.

The ETC Group report says some of the applications are sweeping. One would cover more than 30 crops from oats to oil palms, triticale to tea, and potatoes to perennial grass—“in other words, virtually all food crops.”  The report also asserts that the “corporate grab on climate-tolerant genes” means that “a handful of transnational companies are now positioned to determine who gets access to key genetic traits and what price they must pay.”

Small farmers in developing countries will be particularly hard hit by such “climate-change profiteering.”  Patenting will make the crops expensive and ensure that poor farmers have to buy them every year by prohibiting them from saving seeds from one harvest to grow for the next.

We typically think of drought resistance, salt resistance, and bio-fortification related only to GE crops.  However, the real breakthroughs in agriculture in 2007 were in sustainable and organic farming, not genetic engineering. Conventional, non-GMO breeding techniques are making remarkable progress in developing crops that can tolerate heat, floods and drought.

Some of the non-GMO breakthroughs include: 

  • salt-tolerant wheat to bring life to “dead” farmland

  • improved corn harvests

  • drought-resistant corn

  • beta carotene-rich sweet potatoes

  • allergen-free peanuts

  • iron-fortified corn

  • solutions for fuel, and more.  

The non-GMO solutions also bring with them none of the uncertainties that surround GMOs. 

The ETC Group report claims that “the patent grab is sucking up money and resources that could be spent on affordable, farmer-based strategies for survival.”  It concludes:

These patented technologies will ultimately concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.

If the biotech industry is now patenting all the “climate change” traits allowable, then the non-GMO farmers would not be able to use “their” traits for drought resistance, etc., and produce non-GMO solutions. 

Time and time again, we can connect the dots and the biotech industry’s motivation is clear.  Seems so obvious, yet much of the public still has no idea what is really going on.