Archive for May, 2010

Chicken with Fennel and Mushrooms

Chicken with Fennel and Mushrooms 

We had a wonderful pastured chicken and had some fennel from our CSA so I decided to try this. It was a wonderful dish and the leftovers were even better. You can serve it over pasta or noodles, but we just ate it as is, with some crusty bread on the side. Yum!

1½ hours | 30 min prep

SERVES 8 -10

    * 1 lb mushroom, quartered

    * 1/2 cup dry red wine

    * 1/2 cup flour

    * 1 teaspoon salt

    * fresh ground pepper

    * 4 lbs whole chickens, cut up, washed and dried

    * 2 tablespoons butter

    * 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil

    * 4 ounces pancetta or bacon, diced

    * 1 medium red onion, diced

    * 1/2 lb fennel bulb, bulb only, cut into strips

    * 1 teaspoon garlic, minced

    * 1/2 cup dry red wine

    * 1 tablespoon minced fresh sage leaf

    * cooked mushroom, with liquid

    * 2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar

   1. Preheat oven to 325°F.

   2. Sauté mushrooms in butter in a large ovenproof sauté pan over med-high heat, stirring frequently. When they soften and give off liquid, reduce heat to med, cook until liquid evaporates.

   3. Stir in the first 1/2 cup of red wine. Increase the heat to high and boil until most of the wine evaporates, remove and set aside. Wipe out pan and return it to the stove top.

   4. Brown the chicken in butter and oil (may need to do this in batches) in the sauté pan over med heat, remove and set aside.

   5. Sauté the pancetta in the pan drippings, cooking until it begins to brown. add the onion and fennel, cooking until the onion softens and fennel begins to brown. Stir in garlic and cook 2-3 minutes more. Increase heat to high and stir in the next 1/2 cup wine and sage. Remove from heat and add the sautéed mushrooms.

  1. 6.Return the chicken to the pan, cover tightly, transfer to the oven and bake until the meat is tender and the internal temp is 170°F, about 40 minutes. Remove from heat oven and stir in vinegar. 
  2. 7.Serve and Enjoy


Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Sprouted Flour Blueberry Crumb Cake

When I was growing up in NY we would get this wonderful crumb cake from the local bakery for a special treat. The first time I made this recipe, I knew I found the cake of my youth. It’s a wonderful cake.  The original recipe is here:

My new version is below. For the streusel topping I used sucanat for both of the sugars (in the original recipe it calls for ¼ sugar and 1/3 brown sugar) and since I couldn’t figure out what that would add up to, I just added the 1/3 cup and ¼ cups separately.  I always use full fat Greek style yogurt for the sour cream and that’s what I tend to have on hand and it works great.  If you use frozen blueberries, fold them in when frozen and plan on at least a few more minutes of cooking time. You could use any other berry or even chocolate chips as well. As usual, organic is best. 🙂

For the streusel:

1/4 cup sucanat, or rapadura or organic sugar

1/3 cup sucanat, or rapadura or organic sugar

1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

1/8 teaspoon ground nutmeg

1/4 pound (1 stick) organic unsalted butter, melted

1 1/3 cups sprouted whole wheat flour

For the cake:

6 tablespoons organic unsalted butter, at room temperature (3/4 stick)

3/4 cup sucanat, or rapadura or organic sugar

2 extra-large eggs, pastured/organic, at room temperature

1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

1/2 teaspoon grated lemon zest

2/3 cup organic Greek yogurt or sour cream

1 1/4 cups sprouted whole wheat flour

1 teaspoon baking powder

1/4 teaspoon baking soda

1/2 teaspoon kosher salt

1 cup fresh blueberries

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Butter and flour a 9-inch round baking pan.

For the streusel:

Combine the ¼ cup and 1/3 cup of sugars, cinnamon, and nutmeg in a bowl. Stir in the melted butter and then the flour. Mix well and set aside.

For the cake:

Cream the butter and sugar in the bowl of an electric mixer fitted with the paddle attachment on high speed for 4 to 5 minutes, until light. Reduce the speed to low and add the eggs 1 at a time, then add the vanilla, lemon zest, and yogurt. In a separate bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, baking soda, and salt. With the mixer on low speed, add the flour mixture to the batter until just combined. Fold in the blueberries and stir with a spatula to be sure the batter is completely mixed.

Spoon the batter into the prepared pan and spread it out with a knife. With your fingers,crumble the topping evenly over the batter. Bake for 40 to 60 minutes, until a cake tester comes out clean. The time can vary, especially if you are using frozen blueberries.  Cool completely and enjoy!

Yield: 6 to 8 servings 

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Nanites in Our Food

Nanites in Our Food? Guinea Pigs Again!

By Stanley A. Fishman, Author of Tender Grassfed Meat (Photo credit: *PaysImaginaire*)

Nanites are being added to food, and food packaging. Nanites have even been added to some cooking utensils. There is no labeling requirement. Nanites do not occur in nature. The human body has no experience with nanites, or genetic memory of how to deal with them. At this point, no one knows how nanites will affect human bodies, or the environment. We are guinea pigs once again, without our knowledge or consent.

What Are Nanites?

Nanites are tiny particles of metals or other substances such as silver, iron, nickel, clay, even vitamins, whose tiny size has been created by the manipulation of molecules and atoms. Nanites are very tiny in size. They are much smaller than human cells, being 100 billionth of a meter, or even smaller.

What Is the Purpose of Nanites?

Nanites have many potential uses. Currently, their main use is to kill microorganisms. The FDA has decided to classify silver nanites as a pesticide. Nanites can also be used in agricultural chemicals. Nanites are added to food and food packaging to increase the shelf life of packaged foods, including some beers. The main way they do this is by killing bacteria. Some nanites are used to enhance flavors. Nanites could also be used to modify foods, by means of molecular rather than genetic modification.

Are Nanites Safe to Use in Food?

Nobody really knows. It has not been scientifically proven that nanites are harmful to humans or the environment—but it has not been proven that they will do no harm. Since nanites are designed to kill all microbes, including the beneficial ones, there is concern. In fact, the effect of such nanites could be compared to antibiotics, which are also designed to kill all bacteria, whether harmful or beneficial.

What we do know is that nanites are a product of technology, not nature, and our bodies and the environment have no experience with them and have not evolved to deal with them. Do nanites in food packaging leach into the food? We do not know. Do nanites accumulate in the body and organs? We do not know. Do nanites accumulate in and harm the environment? We do not know.

Which Foods Contain Nanites?

With a few exceptions, the public does not know, and has no way of knowing. The government does not require the labeling of nanites in food or food packaging. With no labeling requirement, it is up to the manufacturer to disclose the presence of nanites in food. To my knowledge, no food has a label that discloses the presence of nanites. The organization Friends of the Earth has published a list of foods that contain nanites, but cautions that the list is incomplete. It is known that the use of nanotechnology in food is believed to substantially increase profits. Even a cursory search of the Internet reveals that there are a number of organizations advocating the use of nanotechnology in all aspects of food production and other manufacturing, holding out the lure of huge profits and benefits. Any packaged, non-organic food could contain nanites, either in the packaging or the food itself, or both. Or it might not. Without a labeling requirement, we just do not know.

How Can I Avoid Eating Nanites?

The same methods used for avoiding GMOs should work for avoiding nanites. Unfortunately, these methods are not 100% effective, but they can really help. I want to avoid nanites, because I do not want myself or my family to be guinea pigs for yet another experiment. I use the following guidelines:

•Avoid processed foods to the extent possible.

•To the extent that processed foods are used, use only organic, preferably packaged in glass, if possible.

•Eat only whole, unmodified foods that are raised without chemicals, organic or the equivalent.

•Eat only grassfed and grass finished meat.

•Eat only pastured dairy, preferably organic or the equivalent.

•Eat only wild fish and seafood.

•Use only traditional cookware, like cast iron, glass, enamel, ceramic, and stainless steel.

•Raise as much of your own food as your circumstances permit. Make your own broth and condiments, again, to the extent it works for you.

•Purchase food from farmers, producers, and companies that are committed to the real food movement, to the extent possible.

•Eat only at restaurants that are committed to avoiding nanites and GMOs in their food.

•If there is a particular food that you want to know about, you can contact the manufacturer and ask if their product contains nanites, either in the product or in the packaging.

We Have a Right to Choose

As human beings, we have a basic right to decide what to put into our bodies. We have a right to decide whether we want to be guinea pigs for nanites, or GMOs, or anything else. The food industry has taken away our freedom of choice by placing unlabeled nanites in our food, and in the food chain. All governments should require that all products that use nanites be clearly labeled, so people can exercise their right to choose. We have a right not to be experimented upon without our informed consent.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Stanley has a great website:

You can buy Stan’s wonderful and highly recommended  cookbook here:

GMOs in the News

GMO’s in the news

Genetically modified food introduces host of dangers

Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.)  bill touting genetically modified (GM)  foods is emblematic of well-meaning leaders who have been duped by the biotech industry about safety – yet again.  The Lugar-Casey Food Security Bill states foreign aid shall be used to conduct research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)  without offering other options. It is time that Congress holds hearings to learn what lobbyist won’t tell them about what’s in their children’s diet.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) cites horrific results of GMO animal feeding studies, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage and gastrointestinal disorders. AAEM called for an immediate moratorium and asks physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients.

How did these high-risk products get in our food? Under the false impression that GMOs would increase U.S. exports, the Bush Administration instructed the FDA to fast-track approvals. The agency dutifully allowed GMOs onto our plates without a single required safety study or label. They justified their position claiming GM foods were not significantly different, but a 1998 lawsuit exposed this ruse. Subpoenaed FDA documents revealed the actual consensus among their scientists was that GMOs could lead to allergies, toxins, diseases and nutritional problems.

It’s time for our leaders, and the public, to know the whole story.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Fairfield, Iowa


Experts Debunk Calls to Allow GMOs in Organics

    * By Ken Roseboro, ed.

      The Organic and Non-GMO Report, May 2010

      Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit

Supporters of biotechnology have proposed integrating genetically modified organisms into organic agriculture. Spearheading this concept are Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California- Davis, and her husband Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer at the UC-Davis’s certified organic farm. The two co-authored a book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, which argues that combining both systems of agriculture-genetic engineering and organic techniques-offers the best solution to feeding the world in a sustainable way.

Tomorrow’s Table has been praised by GM crop supporters such as Bill Gates, and even by Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog.

Working with vs. controlling nature

But several noted experts in organic agriculture dismiss the idea, saying the two approaches are fundamentally at odds. They say that genetically modified foods raise health and environmental concerns, narrow genetic diversity, reduce consumer choice, and don’t offer proven solutions to organic agriculture.

Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature’s Path Foods, calls the proposed marriage of GMOs and organics a “non-starter for a conversation.”

“Organic is always looking to nature for answers; it is a very thought out and studied high-input agricultural system.”

Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota and past chairman of the National Organic Standards Board, says “Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite-an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level-the genetic code.”

Health risks

Most organic experts point to health risks surrounding GM foods as a major reason why GMOs could never be integrated into organic agriculture.

Pamela Ronald has written that “there has not been a single case of illness associated with these (GM) crops.” This claim is often repeated by proponents of biotechnology but the reality is that no one knows if anyone has gotten sick eating GM foods because there is no monitoring to see if illnesses are linked to GM foods. “There is no data from independent, long-term studies on the human health impacts from eating GM crops,” says Tim LaSalle, chief executive officer of the Rodale Institute.

Others agree. “Right now, we clearly don’t know enough about GMOs to integrate them into anything,” says David Vetter, president of Grain Place Foods and organic farmer of 35 years.

“GM crops are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases,” Riddle says.

Environmental impacts

Organic experts see opposite impacts on the environment with the two approaches. “Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems,” Riddle says. “To date, GM has led to an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content.”

“Organic farming is about concerns for environment and stewardship, and I don’t think that GM crops fit in that context of stewardship and concern for the land,” says Maury Johnson, president, Blue River Hybrids, an organic seed company.

While organic farming aims to enhance genetic and biological diversity, GM crops are seen as reducing genetic diversity. “GM crops narrow and restrict our genetic base, which narrows and reduces options for our nutritional needs,” Vetter says.

Ronald and Adamchak point to the success of Bt cotton in reducing pesticide use as an example of how genetic engineering could benefit organic farmers. Kirschenmann says this “single tactic therapeutic intervention” creates unintended consequences. Pests eventually develop resistance as they’ve done to Bt cotton in India or other pests become a problem. The solution, says Kirschenmann, is an approach that encompasses the entire farming system, not just focusing on one pest.

“Pipe dream, not based on reality”

Organic experts say GMOs offer no benefits to organic agriculture. The two main genetically modified traits are a built-in pesticide, Bt, and herbicide tolerance. Dag Falck says neither application could benefit organic agriculture. “There is no GM application we could even remotely imagine being beneficial in organic. It’s a pipe dream and not based on reality.”

“To this point, biotech crops have not produced the yield advantages or biological resilience to multiple stressors. If we’re looking for reliable, multi-benefit, future-oriented farming options in an inputlimited world, biotech is not a player,” LaSalle says.

Eliminate consumer choice

Allowing GMOs into organic foods would also reduce consumer choice. “If genetic engineering became part of organic it would deprive people who want non-GMO foods,” says Margaret Mellon, senior scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists.

Organic consumers have already said they don’t want GMOs. A 1997 draft proposal to allow GMOs in the National Organic Program rules was removed after the US Department of Agriculture received more than 275,000 comments from people outraged by the possibility.

While there is strong consumer demand for organic foods, Riddle points out there is zero demand for GM foods. “Consumers aren’t demanding that foods be genetically engineered.”

“I’d rather rely on mother nature’s wisdom than man’s cleverness.” -Wendell Berry

David Vetter says this quote best captures his response to the idea of allowing GMOs in organics.

Any decision to allow GMOs in organics would not be decided by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Adamchak, Bill Gates, or the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It resides with people in the organic community,” said Mellon, speaking to an audience of organic farmers at the Organic Farming Conference this past February. “It is your question to answer and not anyone else’s.”

Today, the answer remains-as it did in 1997 when 275,000 people told the USDA-a resounding “no.”

U.S. attempting global censorship of GMO food labeling

(NaturalNews) I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers are left in the dark about whether their foods and grocery products are genetically modified or not.

Your help is urgently needed to send a message to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius) to urge them to halt the USA’s nefarious attempts to install a global GMO deception.

Take part in this online petition, go here:

Please understand that the U.S. is attempting to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods, thereby making it illegal for a non-GMO food product to even claim “non-GMO” on the label. If the U.S. succeeds in this global GMO cover-up, the FDA could seize any products in the USA that make “non-GMO” claims. Additionally, the USA could file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that allows non-GMO labeling or claims on its products.

Why is the U.S. pursuing such a devious and sinister course of action? Because, as you well know, virtually the entire federal government caters to the financial interests of powerful corporations — and these include the “Big Ag” giants like Monsanto that want to patent all seeds while destroying the no-GMOs movement. They want to turn non-GMO foods into violations of the law and thereby strip all such products from store shelves.

They want to keep American consumers left in the dark, ignorant of the real dangers posed by GMOs. And of course, they want to dominate the entire U.S. food supply with their toxic GMO crops.

These powerful, dangerous corporations are willing to do anything to achieve their global agenda, including forcing GMO censorship on the entire world.

They might just get away with it, too, unless you join us in speaking up right now to oppose this devious and dangerous action.

Add your voice to the online petition right here:

Health Ranger interviews Jeffrey Smith

Watch my recent interview with Jeffrey Smith at the Health Freedom Expo in California.

Here, Jeffrey reveals the astounding truth about how dangerous GMOs really are for your health:

Check out the Non-GMO shopping guide

The non-profit Center for Food Safety offers a fantastic free Non-GMO Shopping Guide available at

Check it out. There, you can learn which products are truly non-GMO, and you can learn how to avoid products that are most likely made with GMOs.

It teaches you to avoid corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed ingredients, among other things. It’s sponsored by some of the most responsible natural products companies in the business: Nutiva, Nature’s Path, Straus, Woodstock Farms and others.

NaturalNews plans to expand its coverage of GMOs in the weeks ahead. Watch for more updates as this saga on GMOs is unveiled.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Why Do People Hate Monsanto

Why Do People Hate Monsanto?

By Jim Duncan, reprinted with permission of the author.

Monsanto – Crown Prince of the New Robber Barons

We keep hearing an old story that should have died years ago: An organic farmer invites his children’s city cousins to visit. After the urban kids reveal that they eat McDonalds French fries twice a day, the farmer decides to experiment by having his own kids lay down in a field next to the city kids. After awhile, the farm kids are swatting away potato beetles but not single beetle comes near their city cousins.

True believers of this story are aware of some little known history. In the 1990’s, Monsanto released a “new leaf” potato genetically engineered with enough Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to repel potato beetles. McDonalds bought new leaf potatoes for its fries. No studies were ever done on the long term effects on people who consumed large quantities of such potatoes. We have never met any such storytellers who could identify an actual farmer who performed this test, so the story was always probably apocryphal. It’s undoubtedly so today because the new leaf potato never gained more than a five per cent share of the market, McDonalds quit buying them back in 2000 and Monsanto retired them soon afterwards.

The story lives on though because it incorporates the main ingredients of an urban (rural) legend – a worrisome hypothesis, an entertaining application and a logical conclusion. Therefore, it keeps finding new tellers among the growing tribe of those who are suspicious of industrial agriculture and all it represents.

Monsanto is the new Standard Oil, the corporation that typifies today the same relentless dominance of its industry that John D. Rockefeller’s company did in the Gilded Age. Like the old robber barons, Monsanto has successfully enlisted government support that helped them privatize profits while socializing the real costs of their products through subsidies, write-offs (of health and environmental damage) and ruthless stifling of both dissent and competition. Because both Monsanto and Standard Oil extracted the raw materials of their new technologies from the earth, with only a secondary regard for sustainability, they have been equally vilified by conservationists, naturalists and anyone who ever got in the way of their will.

In historical hindsight, it’s hard to hate Standard Oil. Few of us would choose to return to the days of whale oil lighting, steam engine transportation and pre-plastic economies. Though civilization might have found its way through the 20th century without Rockefeller’s indomitable guidance, it surely would not have done so as quickly or brightly. If governments turned their eyes away from the tactics of the old robbers barons it was because they had sold themselves as agents of a future prosperity that would trickle down to all. Monsanto similarly enjoys a privileged access through revolving doors of government because they have sold themselves as agents for universal prosperity.

Probably another hundred years will tell for sure but Monsanto has already convinced their farmer customers that they are “feeding the world” through higher yields, “saving the environment” with reduced use of pesticides and, lately, “promoting sustainability” by using seeds that are genetically modified to require less water. (That latter message has particularly irked the audience of National Public Radio where it’s been played via Monsanto sponsorship announcements.) On paper, those sound like reasonable endorsements for Monsanto’s technological innovations. Yet, that company has alienated so many people that it’s hard to find folks within the organic community who don’t believe Monsanto’s claims are disingenuous. How on earth did they manage to do that? Let’s begin to count the ways.

1. Impudently patenting mother earth. Monsanto, more than any other company, appropriated the concept of intellectual property rights to control farmers. To purchase their genetically modified seeds, a farmer must sign an “end-user agreement” that limits what he can do with them. Agreements are considered necessary to protect intellectual property, justifiably precluding replications that make the seeds unique. However, Monsanto and their ilk also explicitly forbid the use of the seeds for independent research. Scientists can be sued if they examine whether such genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Thus the only research that ever gets published in peer-reviewed journals is that approved by industrial seed companies. According the Scientific American, “In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”

2. Bullying law suits. Monsanto’s lawyers spent a decade tracking down farmers who might have saved seeds for replanting, like responsible farmers have done since civilization began. They sued them and broke them. They also sued a number of organic dairy farmers who advertised that their milk came from cows that had not been fed bovine growth stimulants. Monsanto, which owned the most commercially successful such stimulant rBGH, claimed such ads implied there was something wrong with their product. With control over most research, Monsanto almost always won such cases.

3. Sterilizing Mother Earth. In 1998, the infamous US Patent # 5,723,765 threatened to change farming forever by giving Delta & Pine Land Co. rights to a new technology that sterilizes seeds, as well as any other seeds contaminated by them. Named genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and nicknamed The Terminator, it was frightfully unpopular in countries like India where farmers still primarily grow foods with seeds saved from previous crops. Monsanto pledged a moratorium on commercialization of Terminator technology but then it bought Delta & Pine Co. The Terminator would free Monsanto lawyers from hunting down farmers who save their seeds, so their pledge is viewed cynically by many folks.

4. Sterilizing Mother Earth – unless. GURT’s latest form, called reversible transgenic sterility, is nicknamed The Zombie and appears to be Monsanto’s way around its pledge. Whereas Terminator technology produces plants with sterile seeds, Zombie technology requires an annual chemical application (patented and sold by guess whom) to trigger fertility.

5. Bullying the media. Monsanto’s influence has long managed to kill stories unfavorable to the company, That is most famously documented in the movie “The Corporation” and in Jeffrey Smith‘s book “Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods.” Both documented a 1990’s case in which a Fox-affiliated television station in Florida killed a thoroughly researched story about ill effects from milk produced by dairy cows given Monsanto’s rBGH.

6. Blatantly influencing FDA and USDA policy. Revolving doors swing between industry and government agencies all over the world but Monsanto’s manipulation of them has left its critics with jaws agape. Anyone who thought things might change in the Obama Administration was dismayed by this summer’s appointment of Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner – for Food Safety. Michael Taylor is credited with ushering Monsanto’s rBGH through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply – unlabeled. He is also regarded as responsible for the FDA’s decision to treat genetically modified organisms as “substantially equivalent” to natural foods and therefore not requiring any safety studies. That “substantially equivalent” ruling allowed the FDA to ignore evidence that genetically engineered foods are in fact quite different from natural foods and pose specific health risks.

With Taylor back in charge of implementing whatever food safety laws Congress might pass, Monsanto’s opponents are growing. They now have an entire line of anti-Monsanto T-shirts ( Most ask people to trust GMO’s based on past performances of products Monsanto would like us to forget – agent orange, P.C.B., aspartame, etc. Our favorite says “Soil is Soul” and “Monsanto deals in dirt.” That’s why many of the others are too dirty for us to print.

Reprinted with permission from Jim, from:

Thanks Jim!

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more, great Pennywise Thursday Posts here:

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday Posts here: