(This is actually quite cute, but if Monsanto designed it I'm quite sure it would be a highly venomous Easter killing machine that shoots out projectile eggs filled with Roundup and Agent Orange...)
Showing posts with label Dow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dow. Show all posts
Saturday, April 20, 2019
The Frankenbunny
The Frankenbunny
(This is actually quite cute, but if Monsanto designed it I'm quite sure it would be a highly venomous Easter killing machine that shoots out projectile eggs filled with Roundup and Agent Orange...)
(This is actually quite cute, but if Monsanto designed it I'm quite sure it would be a highly venomous Easter killing machine that shoots out projectile eggs filled with Roundup and Agent Orange...)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Veteran Fights for $250K in Benefits for Agent Orange-Caused Condition
Don Rabush says he is owed more than $250,000 in retroactive benefits from the VA
Frustrated and fed-up, Vietnam veteran Don Rabush calls his fight to get Veterans Affairs benefits for an ailment caused by Agent Orange one of the worth battles he’s ever faced.
The Army second lieutenant has been working to get nearly 40 years of retroactive benefits after suffering a heart attack in 1974.
Though a doctor at the time told him the attack was not war-related, the decision was reversed in 2010 when doctors discovered Rabush suffered a heart condition from contact with Agent Orange. He encountered the chemical during his five and a half years of service.
“In Vietnam, I was fighting the Viet Cong. This is a more vicious enemy. These are people who hide behind bureaucracy not to serve veterans," Rabush told NBC 7 Tuesday.
When Rabush filed for benefits in 2010, the VA granted them. Officials are not disputing Rabush’s ailments or their cause, but when the benefits should start.
Rabush said he should get them retroactively to 1974, but the VA says they should start in 2010 when he filed his new claim.
At issue, says VA Pension Management Center Manager Gary Chesterton, is a form Rabush submitted in 1974, which the VA says was a procedural form, not a claim form.
Disabled American Veterans representative Guy Anastasia told NBC 7 Rabush’s checks say otherwise.
“I did research. I went to the legal staff here and in D.C. to verify it can be used for adjudication purposes. It can be,” Anastasia said.
VA officials say it could be months before a decision is made in Rabush’s case.
The veteran said the fight isn’t about the more than $250,000 he stands to get if he wins. Instead, Rabush said it’s more about making sure he and other veterans who risked life and limb get the benefits they need to lead a healthy life.
“It’s common knowledge that VA claims their motto is — for those that are veterans — is ‘Delay, deny until they die.’ And believe me, I’ve felt all of that,” said Rabush.
Chesterton said 87 percent of the people who work in the office are veterans, and they grant benefits as the law allows.
The Disabled American Veterans office is working with congressional leaders to craft legislation to prevent similar issues in the future.
LINK
Frustrated and fed-up, Vietnam veteran Don Rabush calls his fight to get Veterans Affairs benefits for an ailment caused by Agent Orange one of the worth battles he’s ever faced.
The Army second lieutenant has been working to get nearly 40 years of retroactive benefits after suffering a heart attack in 1974.
Though a doctor at the time told him the attack was not war-related, the decision was reversed in 2010 when doctors discovered Rabush suffered a heart condition from contact with Agent Orange. He encountered the chemical during his five and a half years of service.
“In Vietnam, I was fighting the Viet Cong. This is a more vicious enemy. These are people who hide behind bureaucracy not to serve veterans," Rabush told NBC 7 Tuesday.
When Rabush filed for benefits in 2010, the VA granted them. Officials are not disputing Rabush’s ailments or their cause, but when the benefits should start.
Rabush said he should get them retroactively to 1974, but the VA says they should start in 2010 when he filed his new claim.
At issue, says VA Pension Management Center Manager Gary Chesterton, is a form Rabush submitted in 1974, which the VA says was a procedural form, not a claim form.
Disabled American Veterans representative Guy Anastasia told NBC 7 Rabush’s checks say otherwise.
“I did research. I went to the legal staff here and in D.C. to verify it can be used for adjudication purposes. It can be,” Anastasia said.
VA officials say it could be months before a decision is made in Rabush’s case.
The veteran said the fight isn’t about the more than $250,000 he stands to get if he wins. Instead, Rabush said it’s more about making sure he and other veterans who risked life and limb get the benefits they need to lead a healthy life.
“It’s common knowledge that VA claims their motto is — for those that are veterans — is ‘Delay, deny until they die.’ And believe me, I’ve felt all of that,” said Rabush.
Chesterton said 87 percent of the people who work in the office are veterans, and they grant benefits as the law allows.
The Disabled American Veterans office is working with congressional leaders to craft legislation to prevent similar issues in the future.
LINK
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Top 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOS
If you don’t know whether or not you’re eating genetically modified organisms, you’re not alone—at least in the U.S. Despite the many petitions and appeals for state or federal regulations on labeling foods that contain GMOs, none have passed. And that means companies still don’t have to disclose whether or not a product includes genetically modified organisms. What’s the big deal, you ask?
More than 60 countries require GMO labeling (or ban GMOs altogether) for a number of reasons. While there are many, these are some of the most common concerns:
1. Are they safe? Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow—they’ll all tell you their GMO products have met safety requirements, but the truth is, long term studies haven’t been done on their impact to the human body. USDA approval requires several processes that prove safety, but GMOs have only been in our diet since the mid-’90s, so it’s difficult to know what the long-term health impacts truly are.
2. Known health risks: What we do know is that when genetic modification happens, genes are forced to express certain traits (including pesticides). To do this, the scientists “turn on” all the gene’s components, which can mean releasing allergens that would normally not be expressed in a non-GMO variety. Experts like Jeffrey Smith suggest this is directly related to the rise in health issues.
3. Heavy use of toxic pesticides and herbicides: By design, genetically modified seeds require pesticides and herbicides. While some manufacturers have claimed the pesticide use would decrease over time, it’s only increased, according to a peer-reviewed 2012 study.
4. Pesticides and digestive health: The main function of herbicides and pesticides is to kill unwanted plants and insects. Glyphosate—the most common herbicide used on GMO crops—has been shown to negatively impact the gut bacteria of humans. Jeffrey Smith’s recent film Genetic Roulette highlights the parallel of GMOs in our diet and the rise in digestive health issues and food allergies.
5. Cancer: Both pesticides and GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There are additonal health concerns too including reproductive issues, autism and even heart disease.
6. Environmental impact: GMO crops and their companion pesticides and herbicides wreak havoc on the environment including polluting air, water and soil. Glyphosate—marketed by Monsanto as the herbicide Roundup—is in effect, an antibiotic, which can destroy soil quality and thus impair the plant’s nutritional value as well. Cross-polination between GMO and non-GMO crops is common as well, and can destroy natural plant varieties in the wild.
7. Superbugs and superweeds: Despite the claims that pesticides and GMO crops can relieve farmers of crop-destroying insects and plants, the opposite is showing to be true. Farmers in the Midwest are now battling superbugs and superweeds resistant to pesticides. They’re damaging crops and farm equipment and costing the farmers more money in having to apply heavier doses of toxic pesticides.
8. Patent issues: At the core of the GMO industry is the corporate ownership of seed and seed patents. Companies like Monsanto are notorious for suing small farmers for saving seeds or if GMO crop drift pollinates on their land.
9. Corporate protection: Earlier this year, the U.S. government passed a bill nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In essence, it grants biotech companies immunity from the courts, even if a judge determines it’s unlawful to plant GMO crops, the companies can do it anyway.
10. Prolific presence: Whether or not GMOs are safe has yet to be determined, yet every day, millions of Americans eat them unknowingly due to the lack of labeling requirements. Are you a lab rat? Don’t you at least have the right to know what you’re eating?
This article was originally published on www.NaturallySavvy.com
Alot of Links HERE
More than 60 countries require GMO labeling (or ban GMOs altogether) for a number of reasons. While there are many, these are some of the most common concerns:
1. Are they safe? Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow—they’ll all tell you their GMO products have met safety requirements, but the truth is, long term studies haven’t been done on their impact to the human body. USDA approval requires several processes that prove safety, but GMOs have only been in our diet since the mid-’90s, so it’s difficult to know what the long-term health impacts truly are.
2. Known health risks: What we do know is that when genetic modification happens, genes are forced to express certain traits (including pesticides). To do this, the scientists “turn on” all the gene’s components, which can mean releasing allergens that would normally not be expressed in a non-GMO variety. Experts like Jeffrey Smith suggest this is directly related to the rise in health issues.
3. Heavy use of toxic pesticides and herbicides: By design, genetically modified seeds require pesticides and herbicides. While some manufacturers have claimed the pesticide use would decrease over time, it’s only increased, according to a peer-reviewed 2012 study.
4. Pesticides and digestive health: The main function of herbicides and pesticides is to kill unwanted plants and insects. Glyphosate—the most common herbicide used on GMO crops—has been shown to negatively impact the gut bacteria of humans. Jeffrey Smith’s recent film Genetic Roulette highlights the parallel of GMOs in our diet and the rise in digestive health issues and food allergies.
5. Cancer: Both pesticides and GMOs have been connected with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. There are additonal health concerns too including reproductive issues, autism and even heart disease.
6. Environmental impact: GMO crops and their companion pesticides and herbicides wreak havoc on the environment including polluting air, water and soil. Glyphosate—marketed by Monsanto as the herbicide Roundup—is in effect, an antibiotic, which can destroy soil quality and thus impair the plant’s nutritional value as well. Cross-polination between GMO and non-GMO crops is common as well, and can destroy natural plant varieties in the wild.
7. Superbugs and superweeds: Despite the claims that pesticides and GMO crops can relieve farmers of crop-destroying insects and plants, the opposite is showing to be true. Farmers in the Midwest are now battling superbugs and superweeds resistant to pesticides. They’re damaging crops and farm equipment and costing the farmers more money in having to apply heavier doses of toxic pesticides.
8. Patent issues: At the core of the GMO industry is the corporate ownership of seed and seed patents. Companies like Monsanto are notorious for suing small farmers for saving seeds or if GMO crop drift pollinates on their land.
9. Corporate protection: Earlier this year, the U.S. government passed a bill nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In essence, it grants biotech companies immunity from the courts, even if a judge determines it’s unlawful to plant GMO crops, the companies can do it anyway.
10. Prolific presence: Whether or not GMOs are safe has yet to be determined, yet every day, millions of Americans eat them unknowingly due to the lack of labeling requirements. Are you a lab rat? Don’t you at least have the right to know what you’re eating?
This article was originally published on www.NaturallySavvy.com
Alot of Links HERE
Friday, April 25, 2014
Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and 'Natural' Food Fight
After 20 years of battling Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, food and farm activists in Vermont, backed by a growing movement across the country, are on the verge of a monumental victory -- mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods and a ban on the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as "natural."
On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin's desk, for final approval.
Strictly speaking, Vermont's H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as "natural" or "all natural" while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Proof of this "skull and crossbones" effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.
Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America's anti-GMO and pro-organic movement, the Gene Giants -- Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta -- and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain "trigger" clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont's law does not contain a "trigger" clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.
Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants
Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer right-to-know movement, some of the U.S.'s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby. General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.
At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson. Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil's natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.
Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales. Still, don't expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D "Agent Orange" and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and "RNA interference" crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.
America's giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.
This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.
This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting "Ag Gag" state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they're lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they're supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.
The bottom line is this: Corporate America's current "business-as-usual" strategies are incompatible with consumers' right to know, and communities' and states' rights to legislate.
Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg's, Campbell's, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they're not going to be able to label their products as "produced with genetic engineering," or drop the use of the term "natural" on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C., to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as "natural" or "all natural."
Industry's Last Chance: Indentured Politicians
Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto's minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of "natural" or "all natural" product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.
The GMA's federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:
(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350
(2) Dupont: $9,280,159
(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966
(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851
(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806
(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654
(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654
(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000
(9) Kraft Foods (Mondolez International) $2,391,835
(10) General Mills: $2,099,570
(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951
(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000
(13) Kellogg's: $1,112,749
(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888
(15) Smucker Company: $904,977
The Fire Next Time
These "dirty tricks," "dirty money" ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow. If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states' rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw "Monsanto's Minions" out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act," surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.
Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as "natural" or "all natural."
Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as "natural," even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as "natural, "Big Food's lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.
It's clear why "profit at any cost" big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let's review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.
Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America's new anti-GMO and pro-organic food movement:
(1) There is mounting, and indeed alarming, evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.
(2) Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America's industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the "Great Transition" to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.
(3) Fraudulent "natural" labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives. Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," or "all natural"and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are "certified organic." Recent polls indicate that many health- and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as "natural," versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that "natural" means "almost organic," or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion "certified organic" food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35 billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as "natural." Get rid of fraudulent "natural" labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.
With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it's time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.
LINK
On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin's desk, for final approval.
Strictly speaking, Vermont's H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as "natural" or "all natural" while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
Proof of this "skull and crossbones" effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.
Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America's anti-GMO and pro-organic movement, the Gene Giants -- Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta -- and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain "trigger" clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont's law does not contain a "trigger" clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.
Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants
Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer right-to-know movement, some of the U.S.'s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby. General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.
At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson. Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil's natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.
Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales. Still, don't expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D "Agent Orange" and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and "RNA interference" crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.
America's giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.
This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.
This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting "Ag Gag" state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they're lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they're supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.
The bottom line is this: Corporate America's current "business-as-usual" strategies are incompatible with consumers' right to know, and communities' and states' rights to legislate.
Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg's, Campbell's, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they're not going to be able to label their products as "produced with genetic engineering," or drop the use of the term "natural" on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C., to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as "natural" or "all natural."
Industry's Last Chance: Indentured Politicians
Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto's minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of "natural" or "all natural" product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.
The GMA's federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:
(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350
(2) Dupont: $9,280,159
(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966
(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851
(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806
(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654
(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654
(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000
(9) Kraft Foods (Mondolez International) $2,391,835
(10) General Mills: $2,099,570
(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951
(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000
(13) Kellogg's: $1,112,749
(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888
(15) Smucker Company: $904,977
The Fire Next Time
These "dirty tricks," "dirty money" ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow. If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states' rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw "Monsanto's Minions" out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act," surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.
Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as "natural" or "all natural."
Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as "natural," even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as "natural, "Big Food's lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.
It's clear why "profit at any cost" big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let's review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.
Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America's new anti-GMO and pro-organic food movement:
(1) There is mounting, and indeed alarming, evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.
(2) Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America's industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the "Great Transition" to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.
(3) Fraudulent "natural" labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives. Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," or "all natural"and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are "certified organic." Recent polls indicate that many health- and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as "natural," versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that "natural" means "almost organic," or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion "certified organic" food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35 billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as "natural." Get rid of fraudulent "natural" labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.
With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it's time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.
LINK
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Why We Need to Keep ‘Agent Orange’ GMO Crops Off Our Farms
Have you heard of superweeds? For years, Monsanto has been selling genetically engineered (GE) or GMO corn and soybeans that promote the use of an herbicide called Roundup. Evolution is happening, and now weeds are becoming resistant to Monsanto’s killer.
Dow Chemical thinks they have the solution – new GE corn and soybeans genetically engineered to survive an even more toxic herbicide called 2,4-D. But big profits for Dow Chemical is bad news for the rest of us!
2,4-D was a major component of the chemical defoliant known as Agent Orange
Agent Orange was sprayed aerially by U.S. planes in Vietnam to destroy the country’s forests and agricultural lands. The veterans and civilians exposed to Agent Orange experienced extreme health complications – a range of cancers and birth defects have been linked to exposure to the toxic chemical. The Vietnamese Red Cross estimates nearly 1 million people have experienced health problems as a result of the use of Agent Orange.[1]
2,4-D alone is the seventh largest source of dioxins in the U.S
2,4-D is thought to be the less toxic component of Agent Orange, but 2,4-D alone is the seventh largest source of dioxins in the U.S. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical byproducts of 2,4-D and can bioaccumulate, which means they can build up in your system over time. A 2008 study found that women living near Dow Chemical’s facility in Michigan have significantly higher rates of breast cancer.[2] It has been projected that Dow Chemical’s corn and soybeans would increase the amount of 2,4-D used in industrial agriculture by over 100 million pounds,[3] severely increasing the amount of this toxic herbicide in our food, air, and water.
Exposure to 2,4-D has been linked to major health problems
Health problems include cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lowered sperm counts, liver disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Studies have also demonstrated the chemical’s adverse effects on hormonal, reproductive, neurological, and immune systems.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]
Dow Chemicals has lied about product safety before
Dow Chemical insists that the use of 2,4-D is safe. But they also assured the public that an insecticide called Dursban was safe…until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Dow Chemical $800,000 for illegally withholding over 250 reports of poisonings, including many that occurred even when the product was used correctly.
Why did Dow Chemical think Dursban was safe? They fed it to prisoners in New York and decided that none became “violently” ill right away.[9]
Even after paying the EPA fine for withholding evidence of poisonings, Dow Chemical continued to market Dursban as “safe” in its brochures. In 2003, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued the company for violating a 1994 agreement against falsely advertising the product as safe. Dow Chemical agreed to pay $2,000,000.
So, do YOU trust Dow Chemical to care for the crops you could feed your kids? Currently, the USDA is reviewing Dow Chemical’s new GE crops designed to be resistant to 2,4-D, and they are accepting public comments until February 24.
It is up to you to say “No” to Dow Chemical Company’s “Agent Orange” crops!
Learn more and take action at www.dow-watch.org.
LINK
Dow Chemical thinks they have the solution – new GE corn and soybeans genetically engineered to survive an even more toxic herbicide called 2,4-D. But big profits for Dow Chemical is bad news for the rest of us!
2,4-D was a major component of the chemical defoliant known as Agent Orange
Agent Orange was sprayed aerially by U.S. planes in Vietnam to destroy the country’s forests and agricultural lands. The veterans and civilians exposed to Agent Orange experienced extreme health complications – a range of cancers and birth defects have been linked to exposure to the toxic chemical. The Vietnamese Red Cross estimates nearly 1 million people have experienced health problems as a result of the use of Agent Orange.[1]
2,4-D alone is the seventh largest source of dioxins in the U.S
2,4-D is thought to be the less toxic component of Agent Orange, but 2,4-D alone is the seventh largest source of dioxins in the U.S. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical byproducts of 2,4-D and can bioaccumulate, which means they can build up in your system over time. A 2008 study found that women living near Dow Chemical’s facility in Michigan have significantly higher rates of breast cancer.[2] It has been projected that Dow Chemical’s corn and soybeans would increase the amount of 2,4-D used in industrial agriculture by over 100 million pounds,[3] severely increasing the amount of this toxic herbicide in our food, air, and water.
Exposure to 2,4-D has been linked to major health problems
Health problems include cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lowered sperm counts, liver disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Studies have also demonstrated the chemical’s adverse effects on hormonal, reproductive, neurological, and immune systems.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]
Dow Chemicals has lied about product safety before
Dow Chemical insists that the use of 2,4-D is safe. But they also assured the public that an insecticide called Dursban was safe…until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Dow Chemical $800,000 for illegally withholding over 250 reports of poisonings, including many that occurred even when the product was used correctly.
Why did Dow Chemical think Dursban was safe? They fed it to prisoners in New York and decided that none became “violently” ill right away.[9]
Even after paying the EPA fine for withholding evidence of poisonings, Dow Chemical continued to market Dursban as “safe” in its brochures. In 2003, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued the company for violating a 1994 agreement against falsely advertising the product as safe. Dow Chemical agreed to pay $2,000,000.
So, do YOU trust Dow Chemical to care for the crops you could feed your kids? Currently, the USDA is reviewing Dow Chemical’s new GE crops designed to be resistant to 2,4-D, and they are accepting public comments until February 24.
It is up to you to say “No” to Dow Chemical Company’s “Agent Orange” crops!
Learn more and take action at www.dow-watch.org.
LINK
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The Dirt on "Agent Orange" GMOs
Right after the announcement, concerns sprung up that this new GMO would be “an environmental catastrophe,” since the herbicide, 2,4-D, was an ingredient in the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange.
The USDA issued its initial draft of its environmental impact statement on the corn and soybeans (engineered by Dow AgroSciences and branded under the name Enlist), while the Environmental Protection Agency is working to decide on the environmental effects of the new herbicide, Enlist Duo. So, there’s still a chance that a pin could get put in the whole operation. Good news, of course, for those who are worried about the outcome.
So what’s really at stake? According to Grist.org, if Enlist is approved, there are some positives and negatives. The positive part is that fewer farmers would “adopt aggressive tillage strategies,” according to the USDA assessment. “Aggressive tilling releases a lot of greenhouse gas and leads to topsoil erosion and water pollution.” However, on the negative side, farmers will be spraying more herbicide. “We are already looking at a 75 percent increase in the use of 2,4-D in U.S. agriculture by 2020 even if Enlist flunks the regulatory process.” If approved, “2,4-D use will further increase by another two fold to six fold,” according to the USDA.
Many are wondering if an approval will mean that more and more of these types of GMOs are released. The thing is – 2,4-D-resistant weeds already exist. So the hope is that no matter what happens, Enlist farmers will be willing to change up their weed management practices more often, slowing the spread. But what if it’s used willy-nilly? USDA responds to that questioning saying that it “depends on management practices” and “cannot be predicted.” Not exactly comforting.
The fact remains that while 2,4-D was in Agent Orange, it wasn’t the really nasty stuff. We know a lot about it, given its history and the microscope it’s under. You can check this out for details on toxicity.
Grist.org‘s Nathanael Johnson maintains that “we’ve got to figure out a better way of doing conservation tillage rather than just relying on more and more herbicides. It would be nice if the government could use its regulatory authority to promote big-picture solutions. But in this case, the USDA is firmly focused on the small-picture tradeoff between tilling and herbicide. And in that small picture, it has determined that tilling is more harmful.”
Some of the potential dangers of ‘Agent Orange’ via FoodandWaterWatch.org:
Corn with 2,4-D resistance could be dangerous to eat because a metabolite of 2,4-D is known to cause skin sores, liver damage and sometimes death in animals. 2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and can affect development.
Rats exposed to 2,4-D exhibited depressed thyroid hormone levels, which can affect normal metabolism and brain functioning. Studies found that men who applied 2,4-D had lower sperm counts and more sperm abnormalities than those unexposed to the herbicide.
Not only is 2,4-D dangerous for human health, but it also spurs weed resistance. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, there have been 29 weeds found to be resistant to 2,4-D’s family of synthetic auxin herbicides.
The FDA’s Biotechnology Consultation Note for 2,4-D-resistant corn lists several amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that differed from conventional corn and were statistically significant, including glutamic acid, oleic acid, vitamin C and zinc.
On February 23, 2012, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to respond to a 2008 petition to cancel registration of 2,4-D, citing its common use despite links to cancer, cell damage, reproductive problems and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. With the approval of 2,4-D resistant corn, NRDC claims that use of 2,4-D could grow 50-fold.
Aside from its harmful endocrine and carcinogenic effects, 2,4-D is a very volatile herbicide, which can easily drift onto nearby crops, vegetables and flowers. In fact, a comparative risk assessment found that 2,4-D was 400 times more likely to cause non-target plant injury than glyphosate (also known as Roundup, the herbicide many currently used GE crops are engineered to survive.)
If you’re concerned about the USDA approving 2,4-D herbicide, sign the petition below.
Source: Grist.org
Links and Petition HERE
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The GMO-Free Stream Is Turning Into a Flood
Like cracks in a dam that lead to the whole structure crumbling, the move toward removing genetically modified foods from the food supply, or at least informing the consuming public about how much of the food they eat has been altered in the lab, is spreading. It's only leaking through in droplets now, but soon it may become a torrent.
Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.
When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.
DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.
Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.
Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.
Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.
Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.
The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.
Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.
LINK
Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.
When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.
DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.
Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.
Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.
Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.
Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.
The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.
Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.
LINK
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
