Experts say that the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to get rid of rats infesting your home or workplace. So be prepared take action the moment you have your first sighting. As rodents usually come out at night, it may be long before you spot one. However, rodent waste behind cupboards and furniture is a tell-tale sign that you have a rat problem.

Here are 3 effective ways to get rid of a mice infestation in your home, barn or office.

Use a trap

Perhaps the safest method to get rid of a mouse or two, using a trap is not the most convenient way to rid your property of these pesky pests. The good old snap traps, which snap shut when a rat enters the trap, are considered more humane than glue traps, which cause the rat to stick to the glue pad, leading to death from starvation.

Traps are the first pest-control measure used by most people; however, when it’s more than one rat you need to capture, it is not of much help. Additionally, the wait for a rat to enter the trap can be excruciating, particularly when you have children, have food items lying around (for instance, if you run a commercial kitchen), or have important documents (in an office) at risk of begin chewed away. People who don’t like to deal with the mess of dealing with a dead rodent usually prefer other ways of removing rats from their property.

While a couple of rats can be caught using a trap, a more severe infestation would need a more robust solution.

Use naphthalene balls (moth balls)

This is yet another pest control measure used in many households. All you need to do is to place a few mothballs in areas and holes where you believe the rats are living and moving. As moth balls contain harmful chemicals, be extremely careful around children and pets.

As this method involves placing toxic material in areas frequented by members of the household, people who have pets or young children are usually wary of using this method of pest control. However, using snap traps and glue traps presents a similar difficulty in homes with toddlers.

For an effective yet safe solution to rat infestation, many families resort to professional organic pest control, which is environmentally safe and is executed by experts who know how to bait and trap rodents.

Use a natural repellent substance

Those who do not like to use traps or poisonous substances to get rid of mice are always looking for solutions that would not harm the animal in the process. Using a repellent is one such way to repel rats from the premises without harming them. Simply dab a few cotton balls with a natural rat repellent (such as pure peppermint oil, clove oil or mint oil) and place them in corners around your house or workplace.

The problem with this method is that it may not be as effective in removing an existing rat infestation. Also, the cotton balls need to be replaced at least twice a week to ensure consistent presence of the offensive smell—which is cumbersome and time-taking.

Hire organic pest control service

If none of the above pest control methods appealed to you or don’t suit your requirement due to the enormity of the pest problem you’re facing, perhaps it’s high time to entrusted the job to professionals who have the expertise to get rid of a pest in the safest way possible.

While there are all types of pest control services available, organic pest control companies claim to use products that are environmentally friendly and thus are safe to use around children and pets. Additionally, commercial pest control does not only remove pests, it gives you a complete solution by safeguarding your property against future infestation. This is done by closing the points used by rodents to enter your property, strategic placement of rat repellent materials around the property, and educating you and your family in DIY pest control best practices.

So if you’re struggling to rid your space of rodents but haven’t achieved much success, get a paid service to drive away these harmful disease carriers while you sit back and heave a sigh of relief!

The term “organic” does not exist in nature. It is a legal construct, devised by humans, as in “organic chemistry.”

Organic food and farm activists would want you to believe that their brands are undiluted and exist naturally just like the air and clean water around us. It doesn’t. This exists because there is a law defining the claim to be a mind-numbing legal agenda. Just ask any organic farmer who’s behind his paperwork?

If we were to agree tomorrow that certain GMOs would be considered organic, just as President Clinton and many other leading academicians suggest, we could simply re-phrase the law. Or we leave all things the way they exist being mix up with in arguments. Humans define “being organic” in both ways.

Then there’s this belief that GMOs “infect” organic crops, as if we’re talking about dumping waste into a flowing stream of brook trout. We’re not. We’re simply talking about politics here!

GMOs had never been proven to be harmful, even in the smallest bit. So if politicians should ever decide to accept the often-repeated claim by organic activists that GMOs actually “infect” organic crops, then it will be a political propaganda to set up a legal framework supporting the claim, not a scientific resolution.

Then why would organic activists continuously believe the idea of GMOs infecting organic crops?

The answer is simple. They simply want to sideline agricultural genetic engineering, and prevent GMO farming from further existence; a tricky strategy that has worked excellently: GMO flax, wheat, Golden Rice, Arctic Apples, innate potatoes and some others have been sidelined, some for more than 10 years now.

Yes, the USDA National Organic Program explains how and when synthetic pesticides pollute organic crops. This is because pesticides can cause harm if not used as specified (as noted by Canada’s organic standards). It’s worth noting and no further stipulation needed.

But the repeated America’s or Canada’s standards contain NOTHING that explains how or when GMOs “infect” organic crops. Organic farmers are just being prevented from planting GMO seeds owing to a radical-political hatred to this science that increases in the urban organic circles.

The only scientific definition of “organic”, as mentioned above, is the “organic chemistry” which involves the process of carbon-based life; while “inorganic chemistry” is the chemistry of all other elements. All living things are based on carbon. All of our food (except minerals such as table salt) is, by this definition, truly organic.
Unfortunately, the term “organic” was taken over and politicized by those who came up with an unknown system of growing crops based largely on false notion rather than science, in a market exercise characterized by government sanctions and honor, and tax subsidy. And while the organic program may have gotten respect back then when it focused on reducing the effects of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, it lost all integrity when it launched attacks on GMOs.

Let’s be crystal clear. None of the organic crops anywhere in America or Canada has ever lost organic approval due to pollen or plant-material migrating into them from a GMO crop. Not even one!

Meanwhile, GMOs radically reduce the effects of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, while also bringing about exceptional reductions in fossil-fuel consumption. These achievements should even make organic activists think of applauding and perhaps embrace the process, instead, a shocking number of GMO executives and academicians still support the organic activists’ clever tricks; many now believing that GMOs truly “infect” organic crops, to the point of worrying over how to stop this “contamination” and, most annoying, thinking of how to give cover to organic farmers against it, as if it were a locusts plague or drought.

Myths have it that organic shipments were rejected by buyers who, as was told, demanded a total genetic purity. Meanwhile, 43% of American organic foods test positive for forbidden pesticides, a number higher than what it is in Canada. Why didn’t organic food buyers reject THOSE loads?

It appears organic stakeholders don’t care about synthetic pesticides or fertilizer any longer, even when used indiscriminately by organic farmers. They have wrongly decided that the only solution to organic farming is through a de facto ban on all new GMO crops, which will limit the productive capacity of its modern farming, thereby making organic productivity appear better by comparison.

Nice try. But this baseless, negative marketing ploy is finally coming to light. And no… it is not “inflammatory” or “mean-spirited” to point this out. It’s the law.

Organic farmers are not required to keep their crops 100 percent, or 99 percent, or even 90 percent GMO free. In fact, they’re not required to observe any threshold limit on GMO content in their organic crops, organic seed production being the only possible exception.

And please don’t take only our word for this. According to IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, “Any defined threshold will be chosen arbitrarily and does not reflect adherence to organic principles. Therefore IFOAM does not support the introduction of de minimis thresholds for genetic contamination.” We could not agree more.

Organic standards were written by organic stakeholders, so there is absolutely no excuse for these same stakeholders to now try to ignore them, and to fool others into doing the same. You can’t just make up law on-the-fly because you feel like it, or because you claim your buyers demand it.

There is, to be blunt, no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs, and no basis, in point of scientific fact, for a GMO-free definition of organic. The whole premise of being organic is, after all, pure artifice from start to finish, not bequeathed to the organic farming community by God, Gaia, or Mother Nature, but by man.

Consumers have certainly been led to believe it’s better to “go organic,” and have been convinced this means eliminating GMOs from their diet, above all else. Meanwhile, organic farming requires more fossil fuel, causes erosion, provides little if any discernible health benefit, and has resulted in inordinately high levels of food-borne illness outbreaks, even death, due to the organic industry’s failure to test for fecal coliforms resulting from improperly-composted manure!

So why exactly does every single up-and-coming GMO crop sit idly on the back burner in response to a media-driven backlash to this new field of agricultural science from organic activists?

Farmers and consumers are entitled to make whatever choices they want in a free market. They’re even entitled to believe they’re saving the planet in making these choices, even when they’re not. But this act of dietary faith can no longer be allowed to come at the expense of others.

The time has come to stop organic activists from creating controversy where none exists. We need to strengthen the peaceful coexistence that has always existed between organic and GMO farmers wherever GMOs are grown, and look forward to the day when we might even see the world’s first certified-organic, genetically-modified crop.

Source for this article: The Daily Caller

This article was written with contributions from, and the support of the following people:

• Mischa Popoff author of Is it Organic? and policy adviser for The Heartland Institute, former USDA organic inspector.
• Hans-Jörg Jacobsen, Professor, Institut für Pflanzengenetik (Institute of Plant Genetics), Hanover, Germany, and Visiting Professor at Northeastern University, Boston.
• Klaus Ammann, Professor Emeritus, FRSB, University of Bern, Switzerland.
• Al B. Wagner, Professor and Extension Food Technologist, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.
• Jerzy Nowak, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Horticulture, Virginia Tech: Low Input Agriculture based on modification of rhizosphere and microdelivery of inputs via subsurface irrigation coupled with integrated sensor network and plant phenotyping.
• Pierre Desrochers, Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Toronto, Mississauga, and co-author with Hiroko Shimizu of The Locavore’s Dilemma – In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet.
• Bruce Thornton, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Professor of Classics and Humanities, California State University.
• Robert Wager Biology Dept. Vancouver Island University
• Patrick Moore, co-founder and 15-year leader of Greenpeace, now an independent ecologist and author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, and leader of the Allow Golden Rice Now! campaign.
• Al E. Slinkard, Professor Emeritus, Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan.
• Antonio Saltini, University of Bologna, Italy, author of the four-volume work Storico delle scienze agrarie (History of agrarian sciences in Western civilization).
• Jay Lehr, Science Director at the Heartland Institute, author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 30 books.

The company claims:

“Campbell’s will be launching several lines of organic kid’s soups, and removing MSG from all their kid’s soups. In August 2015, thecompany will introduce Campbell’s Organic soup for kids in three chicken noodle varieties. The soups will be non-GMO and certified Organic.

Pepperidge Farm will be launching several organic wheat versions of their popular Goldfish Crackers. Look for organic wheat versions of regular, cheddar, and parmesan in the coming year. They still need to remove GMOs and go completely organic with the rest of their ingredients.

Increasing organics across other food lines, and increasing the number of organic products offered by Plum.”

This is great news!

It is great news that a major food brand is willing to answer the plea of millions of Americans for organic and non-GMO food. It seems a little bit too late and peculiar considering the major company has opposed GMO labeling with thousands of dollars.

Just two years ago, Campbell contributed more than $265,000 to stop GMO labeling with Initiative 522 in Washington State.

According to Just Label It and Truth Out, Campbell’s Soup spent millions of dollars to defeat labeling with GMO in California. Other companies such as General Mills and Pepsi joined in on the movement.

It is a big win to see such a big corporation like Campbell cave into public pressure. However, is Kellogg’s going to lie about GMOs being in their food? Only time will tell, but I am not planning on buying anything from Kellogg’s until all of their food has been verified as being GMO-free by an independent lab.

Source: EatLocalGrown.com

…

Reasons why is he eating organic foods and avoiding GMO’s. As he tells, organic food has great taste and is more nutritious.

He is avoiding processed food-more that food is processed, less like he will it eat. He is also avoiding wheat and dairy. Wheat is one of the most processed grains. He is feeling great, has a lot of energy and is loosing weight.

Take a look.

…