Monsanto Faces Hundreds of New Cancer Lawsuits

Soon after a California judge required a cancer warning to be displayed on the popular weedkiller, Roundup, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Monsanto is suddenly finding itself knee deep in cancer lawsuits. The lawsuits are being filed over the health risks associated with glyphosate, a chemical classified by the WTO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new round of lawsuits was filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court last week by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, a law firm based in Los Angeles. It was filed on behalf of “136 plaintiffs from across the country who allege that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” Additionally, the firm has also filed similar lawsuits in Alameda County, California, Superior Court on behalf of 40 people who “allege that exposure to the herbicide caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a co-counsel in the lawsuit, the law firm decided to file the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs “to address the injuries that have been caused by Roundup and glyphosate to mainly farmers and farm workers, but we think that consumers and home gardeners have also been affected.”

Plaintiffs from both cases are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death and personal injuries against Monsanto, according to EcoWatch. Other defendants include Osborn & Barr Communications, Inc. and Osborn & Barr Holdings, Inc of St. Louis, Missouri, and Wilbur Ellis Company, LLC of San Francisco, California.

With this latest round of lawsuits, the number of cancer claims that have been filed in federal courts against the agriculture giant is more than 700! And that number is expected to continue climbing. Kennedy even suggested that “claims could increase to 3,000 in the next few months” in light of the new cancer warnings being displayed on Roundup.

However, the lawsuits aren’t just sounding the alarm on the cancer risk associated with Roundup. It’s also shining a light on the corruption that exists throughout Monsanto. For example, just last week, “a federal judge in San Francisco unsealed documents suggesting that company employees had ghostwritten scientific reports that U.S. regulators used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.” In simple terms, Monsanto tried to hide Roundups risks from the public and regulators so the company could go on, business as usual.

Kennedy summed up the company’s corruption in a recent statement, saying:

“Monsanto’s newly released documents expose a culture corrupt enough to shock the company’s most jaded critics. Those papers show sociopathic company officials ghostwriting scientific studies to conceal Roundup’s risks from Monsanto’s regulators and customers, including food consumers, farmers, and the public…One wonders about the perverse morality that incentivizes executives to lie so easily and to put profits before human life. All humanity will benefit when a jury sees this scheme and gives this behemoth a new set of incentives.”

The scary thing is, despite reports and tests classifying glyphosate, as a carcinogen, Monsanto continues to claim that “Roundup creates no risks to human health or to the environment.” But according to reports like the one from the WTO classifying the chemical as a probable carcinogen, it does, and that’s why consumers across the globe should be ecstatic that Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman has decided to take a stand against Monsanto to shed light on just how crooked the company is.

So what does Monsanto have to say in its defense? Well, in addition to continuing to claim that glyphosate is perfectly safe, Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord issued a statement saying:

“We empathize with anyone facing cancer. We can also confidently say that glyphosate is not the cause. No regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate a carcinogen.”

There’s no denying that this is shaping up to be a whopper of a case, and it will be interesting to see how things unfold in coming weeks and months.

http://www.legalreader.com/monsanto-faces-hundreds-of-new-cancer-lawsuits/

Breaking Bread: GMO labeling due on packaged foods by summer 2018

FINALLY!!!!!

Last year, Congress passed a law requiring that foods containing genetically modified ingredients reveal that on their labels.

By the summer of 2018, the marketing division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is charged with defining what that label will say.

Will it actually list the ingredients (as in: "This product contains genetically modified corn and soy"), or will it be a QR code connecting the consumer to the information on a website?

The debate over the label's wording could prove as contentious as the fight over genetically modified organisms themselves.

GMOs are plants whose DNA has been changed. The development is beyond the typical cross-breeding of plants because the changes are made in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Opponents of GMOs fought hard for the labeling. They consider GMOs less safe than non-GMO foods, have ethical concerns about tampering with nature, have issues with the corporations behind GMO seed (namely Monsanto), and fear environmental damage from widespread GMO crops.

GMOs were developed 20 years ago to help farmers by changing the structure of plants to make them more resistant to disease so that farms could produce higher yields while applying fewer pesticides. GMOs are produced mostly for commodity crops: Corn, soy, canola and sugar beet.

Recently, I had the chance to sit in while a group of Ohio food manufacturers learned about the new labeling law from Steve Armstrong of EAS Consulting.

Armstrong is a lawyer who specializes in food labeling and food-regulation compliance; until recently, he served as the chief food-law counsel for Campbell's Soup Co. Armstrong traveled to Columbus to speak at the Ohio Food Industry Summit, sponsored by the Center for Innovative Food Technology in Toledo.

JUMP

MONSANTO AND THE EPA ALLEGEDLY HID EVIDENCE LINKING ROUNDUP TO CANCER

There is growing evidence that the agricultural giant Monsanto and the EPA allegedly worked together to hide evidence which links Roundup to cancer, as a new court filing shows. Sixty people that contracted cancer have been named on behalf of the recent court filing which purports that the Environmental Protection Agency worked with Monsanto officials to hide evidence that Roundup is toxic.

Included in the court filing is evidence from an EPA scientist who worked with the agency for 30 years and specifically singles out Jess Rowland, one of the top EPA officials, for using “political conniving games with the science” in order to hand out favors to Monsanto.

The reason Rowland is being named is because this official was in charge of the assessment for glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other weed killers and Rowland was also responsible as the main author of a report which found that glyphosate was not deemed to be toxic. However, in correspondence, Marion Copley, a top EPA toxocologist, stated, “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer,” which came after numerous animal studies. Marion Copley’s correspondence was written on May 4, 2013.

This letter was dated after Marion Copley stopped working for the EPA in 2012, but before she passed away from breast cancer in 2014. Marion alleged that the EPA’s Jess Rowland “intimidated staff” by colluding with Monsanto to change reports in their favor. Copley also wrote that there has been ample research conducted which proves that glyphosate and Monsanto’s Roundup should be considered a “human carcinogen,” as Huffington Post reported.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, A branch of the World Health Organization, has also said that glyphosate was a carcinogen in March 2015. Monsanto, meanwhile, has gone out of their way to try to discredit the IARC and any scientific studies they have conducted or cited.

If the communication from Marion Copley is proven to be legitimate, this could have a major effect on this multi-district litigation case with Monsanto and the EPA. The plaintiffs that are involved in this lawsuit have all either contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma or have lost someone to the disease. These plaintiffs are citing growing evidence that Monsanto was able to sell their allegedly toxic Roundup because the agricultural company has so much influence within the Office of Pesticide Program, run by the EPA.

JUMP

Related to the Above Piece

Monsanto’s Roundup Kills and Damages More than Weeds

Protests against Monsanto’s Roundup, with its poisonous, weed-killing glyphosate, have spread around the globe. An arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a probable cause of cancer in 2015. California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) recently decided to label it as such.

Environmental groups and activists in Northern California, a region known for its wines, advocate a moratorium on this herbicide as health concerns mount. Roundup is the world’s most widely used pesticide.

Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, was the focus of a January 28 informational event. It was initiated by the Watertrough Childrens Alliance as a fundraiser for a lawsuit against winemaker Paul Hobbs for converting an apple orchard into a vineyard adjacent to schools, thus putting the health of around 500 children at risk by spraying Roundup. The Sierra Club, Sonoma Group, co-sponsored the evening.

Sebastopol Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney welcomed a panel of three experts and around 60 people from Sonoma and Napa counties attended and moderated an active discussion. Attorney Jonathan Evans of the Tucson, Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, organizer Ella Teevan of the Washington, D.C.-based Food and Water Watch (FWW), and former Petaluma Vice-Mayor and City Council member Tiffany Renee spoke.

Monsanto also makes Roundup Ready, which are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). “93% of soy beans and 80% of corn in the U.S. are grown with Monsanto GMO seeds,” reported Teevan. “Food and Water Watch wants a moratorium on more GMOs and their labeling.”

“Our food system and how we interact with our environment is broken. Instead of serving people, profit is served. We need to fix our food system,” Teevan added.

“Glyphosate has become a pervasive presence in the environment. 65% of water in some countries has traces of it,” said Evans. “Exposure can create a number of problems, including liver and kidney damage. It can even change ones DNA. Our goal is to protect health and keep these products out of the market.”

“After the CA EPA decision to label Roundup, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against them. They claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech were being violated,” Evans reported.

“BECOME EDUCATED CONSUMERS”

“We need to become educated consumers and not buy these products. We need to empower elected officials to act, Evans suggested. “We need to get involved in grassroots actions and push for a just food system,” added Teevan. “Become active participants in democracy.”

“The California city of Richmond banned all pesticide a year ago,” reported Renée. “We advocate such a ban in Petaluma, which must include neonicotinoids. Portland, Oregon has banned neonicotinoids, systemic pesticides that damage bees. Glyphosate is a public health threat. The many costs are suffered by humans, animals, and plants. The benefits are only to a few humans,” she added.

“The highest use of glyphosate in Sonoma County is for winegrapes, yet non-toxic alternatives are available,” said Evans. “Monsanto is a bad actor. They sue farmers when GMO seeds blow onto their lands from neighbors,” he said.

The Huffington Post’s January 26 article “8 Reasons to Avoid Doing Business with Monsanto,” by business editor Alexander C. Kaufman, reports that the giant bioengineering firm has been dubbed “the world’s ‘most evil corporation.’”

Mounting criticism of Monsanto’s “litigious, secretive, and combative” practices have made it financially vulnerable, asserts Kaufman. It plans to cut 3,600 jobs, which would be 16% of its global workforce. Roundup and Roundup Ready constitute 90% of Monsanto’s revenue. “Several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited glyphosate products,” notes Kaufman.

“Hundreds of Moms Across America groups exist nationwide,” he adds, and “more than 2 million people in 52 countries internationally took to the streets to ‘March Against Monsanto.’”

Monsanto is desperately seeking a merger, according to the January 25 issue of GMWatch from the United Kingdom (www.gmwatch.org). One of their goals seems to be to abandon their tarnished name.

CITIZENS SPEAK UP

When Mayor Gurney opened the discussion to the crowd, more than a dozen people promptly came to the microphone. The first speaker quoted a study of seven wines from Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake counties conducted by the Biochemical Working Group in Ukiah. It documented that traces of glyphosate exceeding EPA safe levels were found in all of them. People are drinking Roundup in their wine. Glyphosate has been banned in Europe.

“We’re tired of our children and babies being damaged by Roundup. We need to mandate a real school protection zone,” declared Janus Matthes of Wine and Water Watch (www.winewaterwatch.org). Instead, “the vineyards are being protected,” she added.

“It is so easy to use Roundup. The breads that you eat that are not organic have glyphosate in them,” noted geologist Jane Nielson, Ph.D.

“Roundup is an antibiotic that kills gut bacteria,” said Amy Martenson of Label GMOs Napa County. She added that “we are having problems with the vineyards. Napa County has the highest rate of cancer in California.”

“We want a GMO free zone up and down the coast. Most counties on the North Coast have prohibited growing GMO crops,” explained Pam Gentry of Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families. They are collecting signatures to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would ban growing genetically engineered crops in Sonoma County

Monsanto controls an area in South America larger than California called “soybean republic.” Jim Stoops noted, “Sixty doctors have complained about higher cancer rates in that area.”

Meanwhile, GM Watch reported the following: “Monsanto’s attempts to build its GMO seed plant in Argentina have met with three years of unflinching popular opposition. Protesters received an eviction notice, but local activists mobilized to strengthen the blockade, and a prosecutor suspended the order. The demand was, ‘Monsanto, get out of Latin America!’

Back in the U.S., GM Watch reports the following: “Campbell Soup Company said it supports the enactment of federal legislation for a single mandatory labeling standard for GM foods. The company said, ‘Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.’ Campbell says its prices will not increase as a result of labeling.”

The article “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025” appears in the December 23, 2014, newsletter of the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), with the subtitle “Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT.”

MIT’s Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., “noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.”

ANH describes “the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA scratch each others’ backs.”

Food and Water Watch’s booklet Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, further documents this: “Monsanto’s board members have worked for the EPA, advised the U.S. Department of Agriculture and served on President Obama’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.”

Renee concluded that “we need activism. Eat locally, hopefully organic or biodynamic. Grow part of your own food.”

link

GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA

Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them. That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely natural selection and adaptation. And this denial of basic science by the company and our government threatens the future viability of American agriculture.

Third Grade Science

Let's start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation. This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is part of the basic third grade science curriculum.

As we all remember from biology class, when an environment changes, trait variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that new environment and survive. Others will die out. The survivors are then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same species would perish. The drought-resistant plants then become the "evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought environment.

Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is bringing to us all.

Biotech's Dirty Little Secret

First a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger, reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such "miracle" crops exist. No significantly greater yielding crops, no more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create greater agrochemical residues on our food. Why? Because around 85 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup. Usually, if toxic weed-killing chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are killed, but the crops remain.

In the United States, more than 50 percent of all our cropland is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for additives like high fructose corn syrup. Almost none directly feeds people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our farmlands because of these altered crops.

Profits versus Science: Science loses

If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you. Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?

As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated, "Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event." They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds." Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.

Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming. Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.

Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence? He just shook his head and said "You're right, weeds have evolved resistance." But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.

"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial

Now Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D (one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange"). Monsanto has also gained approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.

But won't the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry. They claim -- as they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from two or more different herbicides with different methods.

Weed scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past, through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again. So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are virtually indestructible by any known chemical. But by then Monsanto and Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the "superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have to deal with the other nightmares that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.

A Better Way

A science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed control. There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.

So it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic disaster they will inevitably bring with them.

In the meantime, the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" -- think of 70 million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its enablers at the USDA.

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up

The History of a chemical company

Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000  current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of  one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.

From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.

During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.

In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.

Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding

More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up

Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.

In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.

The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped  into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant,  or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled  in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!

As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.

Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

LINK with LIVE JUMPS

Monsanto monarch massacre: 970 million butterflies killed since 1990

The beautiful monarch butterfly, which is also a major pollinator, is being threatened by herbicides that eradicate milkweed, its primary food source. Now, a desperate rejuvenation program is under way to save the species from possible extinction.

A shocking statistic released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday summed up the plight of the monarch butterfly: Since 1990, about 970 million of the butterflies – 90 percent of the total population – have vanished across the United States.

The massacre provides a grim testimony to the delicate balance that exists between man and nature, and how the introduction of a single consumer product – in this case, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide – can wreak so much havoc. Sold to farmers and homeowners as an effective method for eliminating milkweed plants, Roundup Ready, introduced in the 1970s, is widely blamed for decimating the monarch butterflies’ only source of food in the Midwest.

“This report is a wake-up call. This iconic species is on the verge of extinction because of Monsanto's Roundup Ready crop system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety, which last week released a report describing the effects of herbicide-resistant crops on monarch butterflies in North America.

“To let the monarch butterfly die out in order to allow Monsanto to sell its signature herbicide for a few more years is simply shameful.” 

The widespread death of the monarch butterfly has prompted some groups, like the Center for Biological Diversity, to demand the butterfly be placed on the endangered species list.

Dan Ashe, director of Fish and Wildlife Service, preferred to take a diplomatic approach to Monsanto’s hefty contribution to the problem, saying everyone is responsible for the plight of the monarch butterfly.

“We’ve all been responsible. We are the consumers of agricultural products. I eat corn. American farmers are not the enemy. Can they be part of the solution? Yes,” Ashe said.

“It’s not about this wonderful, mystical creature. It’s about us.”

Rejuvenation efforts

The monarch migrates annually thousands of miles - and over the lifespan of many generations - from Mexico, across the United States, to Canada. To complete this migration, the butterfly is dependent upon the milkweed plant, which provides not only a major food source, but a larval host. However, as US farmland continues to eat up the remaining wild places, there appears to be little left to sustain the monarch.

In an effort to restore monarch numbers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has teamed up with the National Wildlife Federation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to start a milkweed replanting program.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said it will contribute $2 million this year to restoring more than 200,000 acres of monarch habitat, while also “supporting over 750 schoolyard habitats and pollinator gardens.” The service will also concentrate rejuvenation efforts on Interstate 35, a 1,568-mile (2,523 km) highway that extends from Texas to Minnesota, which closely follows the monarch’s migration path.

“We can save the monarch butterfly in North America, but only if we act quickly and together,” said Ashe.

The monarch butterfly is not the only pollinator species suffering from the agricultural use of pesticides. Wasps, beetles and especially honeybees have all experienced significant drops in their numbers over the years, which will have adverse effects on America’s crop supply if not soon addressed.

More EVIL MONSANTO Here

Fox News Reporters Fired For Trying To Expose Monsanto Were Right, Gets Heard A Decade Later [Video]

Today, more people are in-the-know when it comes to the complicating dangers of foods that are or contain anything genetically modified (GM) and the practices of the corporation synonymous with said GM products, Monsanto.

The Inquisitr made sure to report on the latest pertaining to Monsanto and anything that is GM. Late last year, Maui County in Hawaii voted in favor of banning GMOs. This caused Monsanto to file a lawsuit against the county because it affected their business. Apparently, Monsanto had the judge overseeing the case in their back pocket, which resulted in them winning. The dance continues as Hawaii County Officials are trying to appeal the court ruling. It is safe to say that such shenanigans wouldn’t be tolerated in Russia or China, since they have zero tolerance for anything GM.

Because of the aggressiveness the organic movement has shown against GM products, people who originally stood up against companies like Monsanto are finally being recognized. This includes two former Fox News reporters who were fired. The reason for their termination is because they were about to expose something that the organic community knows about today: GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk.

According to True Activist, the story of the two Fox News reporters who were fired for exposing rBGH was originally told in the documentary The Corporation. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were working on a series of health concerns related to rBGH, which they discovered did not comply with safety requirements highlighted by Health Canada. For some reason, that part was not included in the final published version of the report by the corporation that made it, Monsanto.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were going to expose this to the public on Fox News, but the report was put on hold after Monsanto’s high-priced lawyers in New York sent a threat to the news channel. Fearing a lawsuit, the general manager tried to do all they could to stop the report. Eventually, Steve and Jane were fired.

In a follow-up article by Nation of Change, Monsanto tested rBGH (formally known as Posilac) on rats for 90 days. While in its testing stage, Monsanto was busy promoting rBGH as the “most tested product in history,” specifically to push it as safe. Apparently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favored Monsanto and gave it the rubber stamp for human consumption. Health Canada, however, tested rBGH on their own and came up with very different results. Utilizing testing in the United Kingdom, they found rBGH can be absorbed by the human body, thus possibly being toxic. As a result, the Canadian regulatory bodies saw the potential for serious human health problems and denied rBGH for human consumption.

It should probably be reported the reason why Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were terminated for exposing the truth is because of the time. Back in 1997, the general public weren’t knowledgeable to the dangers of GM products. Not to mention, Monsanto at the time was quite powerful because nobody challenged them. As for The Corporation, it was released back in 2003, a time when GMOs were starting to be recognized but primarily as something good (solution to world hunger, better food, etc.).

Now, more than a decade later, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre are finally being heard as the report they tried to bring to the public on Fox News back in 1997 is now mainstream knowledge among scientists, think tanks, organic farmers, and health experts around the world. As a matter of fact, rBGH is now linked to both breast and prostate cancer.

With more countries banning the company from ever having their GMOs and other GM products in their country, it may just be a matter of time.

Video Link

‘No Bugs, More Food?’ Parent Finds GMO Propaganda In Common Core Science Book

Over the last couple of years, some parents have become cautious of what foods to feed their children, especially with the discovery that genetically modified (GM) foods may be hazardous to a child’s health. The Inquisitr has assisted these parents by reporting on the latest pertaining to GM foods, which could start as early as infancy with GM baby formula and continuing to elementary school with lunch milk containing GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

As a result, cautious parents are reporting pros with their children on GM-free diets, and no-GM product businesses, such as Chick-fil-A and Chipotle, are prospering.

However, parents aren’t the only ones who assist in a child’s upbringing, though they should be the most important. Following the old phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child,” teachers accompany in a child’s development, eight hours a day, five days a week, on average. Sometimes, what they teach is in defiance to a parent’s lessons. In this case, a parent is upset that children are being taught genetically modified organism (GMO) propaganda in sixth grade.

According to AltHealth Works, Dawn Jordan, a parent in Missouri (Monsanto’s home state), was shocked to find a section in her niece’s science book, Science: A Closer Look, dedicated to GMOs, specifically GM crops. The section touted four positive bullet points about GMOs which are listed below.

*GMOs can produce more food.
*GMOs have more nutrients.
*GMOs fight disease and insects.
*GMOs need fewer chemical pesticides.

Of course, none of the negatives discovered through scientific testing and research have been included in the textbook. Also, the teacher assisted in the GMO agenda by writing in an answer for one of the questions that asked children to list three ways GMOs could be helpful to humans. Dawn Jordan provides a statement on the teacher’s assistance in promoting GMOs.

“When my niece sent me her homework, I noticed her teacher wrote ‘no bugs, more food’ as a suggestion to her as to what to write about… which disgusts me that a teacher in a public school system has no knowledge whatsoever on the actual truth about GMOs and is merely doing what she is told, without proper research first.”

In a follow-up article by Buy Non-GMO Seeds, it reports that the textbook is published by McGraw-Hill, and is being distributed to schools across the country. It is unknown how many of the books were actually distributed.

This is not the first time Monsanto or another pro-GMO organization or entity has influenced the children of America to support their agenda. Monsanto funded the production of a coloring book titled Look Closer to Biotechnology that was riddled with pro-GMO propaganda. A heavily-biased activity book that listed alleged positives of GMOs but none of the negatives would have been distributed among the public if it weren’t for activists. Summarized, this isn’t the first time Monsanto has attempted to manipulate the minds of children in their favor, and it won’t be the last.

To all you parents out there, now that you’ve read of Monsanto’s agenda of teaching your children about GMOs in their favor, what are your views? Do you find Monsanto and GMOs to be an issue best stopped through education, or are activists just paranoid?

LINK

When Monsanto Owns Your Sperm (SATIRE)

Should have learned by now but how were you supposed to know you should always read the fine print on your cereal box.

You sit down at the kitchen table. Pour breakfast kibble into a bowl, add milk, and eat. That’s how it’s done. Maybe you take a glance at some cartoon character on the front of the box, but that’s about it. Nobody expected you’d need a law degree before a post-dawn get down with good ole Cap’n Crunch.

You don’t expect to hear someone knocking on your front door at six o’clock in the morning. At least you shouldn’t. Cops, bill collectors, and religious zealots sometimes pick that time in the morning since they know you’re probably home. They don’t particularly care if you think they’re entirely obnoxious for waking you up from a sound sleep. Oh, and process servers like early morning visits as well.

CEASE and DESIST

Well, that’s certainly plain enough. You open the front door and a funny looking little guy, resembling the Cap’n himself a bit, hands you official looking papers, smiles, and strolls back to his car. CEASE and DESIST. Well, you can’t please all the people all of the time.

You pour yourself a second cup of coffee and read the damn thing. Blah, blah, blah, your name, blah, blah, Monsanto, CEASE and DESIST, all activity involving, fluids, your body, blah, blah, implied consent, CAP’N CRUNCH, your supermarket reports. You live alone…read the cereal box. CEASE and DESIST.

You need more coffee and your reading glasses. On the back of the Cap’n Crunch box, in infinitely small letters, you read, “By consuming this Monsanto GMO product, you agree that Monsanto shall retain all rights to all material produced in conjunction with this Monsanto product.” You wonder if that isn’t just the slightest bit odd.

Back to the CEASE and DESIST order. “Blah, blah, blah, all products produced by ingesting this Monsanto product including, blood, muscle, flesh, bone, hair, nails, internal organs, ejaculate, sweat, tears, and manure. Use of any and all of these Monsanto products by you without suitable recompense….”

Reading further you are delighted to discover that you need not immediately stop using the Monsanto products which now constitute your body.  Upon monthly payment of one hundred dollars, for a single gentleman such as yourself, every 30 days Monsanto will allow you to maintain control of up to one inch of fingernail clippings (per digit), the equivalent amount of fluids and solids commensurate with up to four flushes a day, one inch of overall hair,  the product of 15 ejaculations, and the donation of a pint of blood to charitable organizations. Any use above these limits must be shipped immediately to the Monsanto processing facility nearest your home.

This seems relatively fair to you. After all, you did eat the cereal and failed to read the small print on the package. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” as they say. And since Sergeant Scalia maintains that corporations like Monsanto are human, and you’ve got the product of Monsanto seeds in you, in a way you’ve been royally screwed and Monsanto wants its child support, or something like that. Threats regarding dragging you through every court in the land and hounding you until the end of time are most definitely implied.

On the final page of the CEASE and DESIST order are instructions for proper payment as well as an offer for additional use of your Monsanto body products. For an extra fifty dollars a month, you are allowed unlimited use of the Monsanto products which now constitute your body. You don’t think you’ll be donating more than a pint of blood, or growing more than an inch of hair, but you decide to kick in the extra fifty anyway.

Not the best way to start off the morning, but you feel better once you’ve authorized your bank to pay Monsanto on a monthly basis. You figure it’s cheaper than court costs. Being jerked off by a lawyer would probably cost at least twice as much.

LINK to this amusing piece

Eating GMOs? You May be Playing Roulette With Your Life

What’s Wrong With GMOs?
“Round-Up Ready” is the name given to soy and corn that was developed by Monsanto and involves the pesticide Round Up being integrated right into the seeds before they are planted. The theory they are trying to sell is that this will require less pesticides to be sprayed, but according to experts at Cornell University, this practice has ended up requiring a more intense use of pesticides as the plants around the corn and soy (and the corn and soy themselves) grow resistant to the Round Up. Mistake?

Coincidence?

Don’t be naive.

It gets worse with GM corn. When an insect eats GMO corn, their stomachs, for lack of a better description, explode. At first, studies showed us that there was no impact on human health. Now studies reveal that tiny tears in the cells of human intestines occur when we eat GMO food. The result is a rise in leaky gut, which leads to a rise in food allergies and auto-immune disorders. This is terrifying stuff. The documentary ‘Genetic Roulette’ by Jeffrey Smith, one of the world’s leading consumer advocates should make you sit up and take notice…and never question whether or not to buy organic again.

And these are just two of the thousands of genetically modified foods being mixed into the ingredients in many foods today.

Messing With Mother Nature
Genetic modification also allows for cross-breeding that is far removed from natural hybridization, although manufacturers of these products would have you believe otherwise with their propaganda. The theory behind GMOs is simple. Scientists select specific genes from one organism and introduce them into another to confer a specific trait. This technology can be used to create new varieties of plants and animals more quickly than conventional methods and produce traits not possible through traditional, natural techniques. The mad scientists behind GMOs would have you believe that their process is just like mixing red and yellow peppers’ DNA to create an orange pepper, but it isn’t. For example, genetic material from salmon can be injected into strawberries to make them more resistant to cold weather. That’s messing with Mother Nature in the most unnatural way.

Look at it this way. Two peppers, even of different colors, would hit on each other in a bar, date, and mate. But a strawberry and a salmon, well, not so much. The consequences of this work are alarming with ramifications we cannot begin to imagine.

While marketers try to sell us on the concept of GMOs as foods that improve yields, are more nourishing for developing countries struggling with famine, and require less use of toxins to grow them, nothing could be further from the truth. While Monsanto and other chemical giants continue to promote these false ideas, there has been no independent proof to support their claims. Only studies conducted within their companies have shown the results they market in their public relations campaigns.

There is, however, increasing concern among independent scientists about the safety of these crops and the resulting foods. The spread of pesticide-resistant plants, the possible toxicity to natural habitats and the species that thrive there, and the impact on human health all remain unanswered questions and are of paramount concern to experts.

Who Benefits From GMOs?
So why do these companies do this? Why take such risks with the collective health of humanity and the planet?

GMO crops and foods would give companies like Monsanto and DuPont the ultimate control over human life . . . the control of food. They have already changed the way commercial farmers farm; this is just the next step to world domination, in the sense of food.

Do you think that the chemical executives sitting in their high-rise glass-walled offices with spectacular views care for one moment about the health of populations in developing countries? Or in the industrialized world, for that matter?

How Did We Get Here?
With more than 167 million acres of GMO crops planted in the United States, making our farmers the largest producers of these crops, there is solid reason for concern. The United States accounts for more than all GMO crops grown around the world. And if you are thinking it’s just about corn and soybeans, here is the laundry list of crops now grown using GMO technology (and don’t you think it’s weird to even use the word “technology” when talking about growing food?): corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, squash, sugar beets, rice, dairy products, farm-raised salmon, papaya, and alfalfa, to name a few. GMO ingredients play a role in more than 70 percent of our food overall.

How can this be? How did these potentially disastrous organisms get into our food in such a high concentration? Public relations would have you believe that the FDA approved GMOs after rigorous testing and long-term studies. Nope. In fact, there are no safety testing requirements, according to their own website. The only testing done on GMOs is done by the companies themselves and are meticulously designed to avoid problems: this, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the leading researcher in this field. (When Dr. Pusztai expressed his concern over GMO issues, he was fired from his job after thirty-five years at a biotech plant.)

The FDA, under the first President George Bush, was specifically directed to promote the research of biotechnology and not ironically, the person in charge of developing the policy was the former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto, who later became their vice president. The results of his policy showed that GMO crops were not different from traditional crops in “any meaningful or uniform way.” Therefore, testing was not required.

It didn’t stop there. The outrage was perpetrated on Mother Nature came under the Obama administration. In one week, this administration deregulated two very important crops that can affect our future: alfalfa and sugar beets. Deregulation of alfalfa, the nation’s fourth largest crop and a prodigious pollinator, could spell disaster for natural crops. Used mainly in animal feed, GMO alfalfa would contaminate not only soil and crops, but the meat you eat as well. In January of 2011, this important crop was completely deregulated, meaning that there are no restrictions on the growing of GMO, Round-Up Ready alfalfa by Monsanto and no labeling is required . . . so you, the consumer will have no idea. This deregulation also removed what are known as “buffer zones,” specific distances designed to prevent the contamination of organic alfalfa crops by GMO crops, making it virtually impossible to produce organic alfalfa. Indirectly, this means that it could become impossible to produce organic meat and dairy products since alfalfa is such a big part of their feed.

And the hits continued! In February 2011, sugar beets were deregulated allowing for GMO sugar beet crops to be grown without restriction or labeling requirements to avoid “a sugar shortage,” according to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture for the Obama administration. God, forbid we should consider using a wee bit less sugar. We’d rather screw up the natural order to feed the hungry mouths of business and lobby groups!

We Need GMO Labeling
Tom Vilsack says that to regulate GMO crops would be “burdensome” to business, but whose business? The deregulation of these crops and the resulting contamination puts an unreasonable burden on all those dedicated farmers and business people working hard to produce and create organic foods. The deregulation of these crops significantly threatens the ability to produce certified organic products, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (author of the original Organic Foods Prodution Act). The biotechnology industry has declared war on the organic food industry and through shrewd lobbying has won a decisive victory . . . and will continue unopposed with the onslaught of genetically modified foods that are controlled by only a handful of multinational corporations.

Are you mad as hell yet? It gets better.

Scientists who worked for the FDA came to the overwhelming consensus that GMOs were distinctly different from other crops and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect toxins, allergens, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to conduct long-term studies.

They were ignored.

As a result, only one in four Americans knows that they have eaten or are eating GMO foods. The Campaign for Healthier Eating is committed to educating Americans about what is really in their food. One of the goals is to change the regulations so that GMO ingredients in food must be listed as such. The labeling is voluntary now.

What You Can Do
Read labels, when you can find them, and work to understand them. Begin with your produce. You know those pesky little stickers that are so hard to remove from everything we buy? They could turn out to be your best pals.

If produce is grown with GMO influence, the little stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “8.” If the produce is organically produced, the stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “9,” and conventionally produced veggies and fruits will have stickers with a 4-digit number. But don’t get your hopes too high that you’ll beat them at their own game. With voluntary labeling you have no idea what you are getting most of the time unless it’s certified organic.

With processed foods, there is no way to tell what GMOs may be lurking in your food, well, foodlike substances. GMO ingredients are widespread and well-hidden. Even some so-called natural food companies employ GMO ingredients so you really have to know the players to win at this game . . . unless you are buying certified organic foods. And with all of the deregulation going on around us, certified organic could become a moot point. At this time, there is only one organization dedicated to rooting out GMOs and letting the consumer know if the products they are using contain GMOs, whether the product is organic or not. The Non-GMO Project’s mission is simple: They are “committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO sources.”

Most important, you can get involved. Go to www.carighttoknow.org and support the cause in any way that you can. And vote with your dollar. Cornucopia Institute has information on who is doing what with this most important campaign. Use your dollar to tell these companies we will settle for no less than the truth. Finally, get your hands on a copy of the documentary, Genetic Roulette and watch it with friends and family. Genetically modified foods and other toxic additives in our foods should scare us witless and have us all mad as hell.

JUMP for links

Soy vey! Monsanto just lost its GM permit in Mexico

A judge in Mexico has revoked Monsanto’s permit to plant genetically engineered soy in that country.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

The judge wrote that the soy posed a threat to the honey industry of the Yucatan because the presence of pollen from GM plants would make it much harder to sell honey in Europe. The honey producers of the Yucatan sell almost exclusively to the E.U., according to the Guardian’s Nina Lakhani.


Honey from wildflowers sounds delicious, as does buckwheat, but soy honey? Hmm. Maybe it’s just as well.

LINK

Are We Too Clueless to Understand GMO Labeling?

If GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people, why not label products as such?

As if there isn’t enough malaise about government already, here’s a great way to get the American people to feel their elected officials aren’t serving them: Tell them that they’re stupid and their opinions don’t matter. Which raises the question: Who are they serving? But I’ll come back to that in a moment.


The House of Representative’s Committee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture recently convened to discuss the benefits of biotechnology. The subject of whether genetically modified organisms, aka GMOs, in our food should be labeled – they currently are not – was on the table. One of the experts asked to testify was David Just, a professor at Cornell University. However, he's apparently not an expert on GMOs, but rather on behavioral economics in child nutrition programs, whatever that means. His opinion was that GMO foods should not be so labeled because people don’t understand about GMOs.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) asked him, “What is the biggest drawback? Is it the ignorance of what the product is, just from a lack of education?” To which Just replied: “It is ignorance of the product, and it's a general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed or treated in some way that they don't quite understand.” In simple English, we’re too stupid to understand this complex subject. The entire Committee, made up of six Democrats and seven Republicans, agreed. In this case, it simply means that seeds are inserted with genetic material from other organisms. It doesn’t take a PhD or the word Congressman or Congresswoman before your name to understand that. That’s astounding when the Internet has allowed people to research and become conversant in countless complex topics. Plus, there has been enormous media coverage of the subject.

Regardless of whether GMOs are dangerous to people and to crops in the long run – that’s a whole other discussion – why would the people who run Monsanto and other companies that make GMOs and the manufacturers who use them in their food products be opposed to labeling? After all, their position is that GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people and decreased use of pesticides. Labeling would simply allow people to chose to consume such foods or purchase other products without GMOs. We already have that choice with organic products. Why not with GMO products? It’s worth noting that the European Union has mandated that GMO products be labeled, and six member nations have banned them outright.

So who are many of our elected officials serving? Could it be that that Monsanto, other chemical companies and big food companies regularly fill the coffers of our elected officials to fund their reelection campaigns? Just wondering. And by the way, guess whose payroll Just is on? That’s right. He’s a consultant to Monsanto. We’re not too stupid to understand that implication.

Many Good Links Here

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

MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO TO SHOUT “HELL NO TO GMOS” FOR SECOND YEAR

 In 2013, Tami Monroe Canal founded March Against Monsanto because she believed it would protect her daughters’ health. Monsanto is an agricultural company that produces seed brands and herbicides (most famously, Roundup), some of which have been scientifically proven to cause health risks, such as birth defects, cancer, organ damage and auto-immune conditions. Monsanto is also one of the world’s leading producers of genetically modified organisms (better known as GMOs).

GMOs have been partially banned in several countries and foods containing GMO ingredients are currently labeled in 64 countries. Monsanto has spent millions in lobbying efforts opposing such laws in the United States. (Anti-labeling groups spent $22 million in an attempt to beat down labeling legislation in the state of Washington alone). The company has failed to make nice with independent farmers; early this year it won a lawsuit that allows the agri-giant to sue farmers whose fields are found to contain patent-protected Monsanto biotechnology, even if the farmers did not knowingly use such matter.

Despite the insistence from Monsanto that their company helps, not hurts, farmers, and the lack of credible scientific evidence proving that GMOs harm health and environment, Canal’s anti-Monsanto message is increasingly popular, evidenced by the 54 GMO labeling bills currently being discussed in 26 states, including Vermont’s signing such a bill into state law in early May.

March Against Monsanto (MAM) will gather on May 24 across “six continents, in 52 countries, with events in over 400 cities.” Participants demand Monsanto halt GMO use and the production of pesticides they believe are hazardous to human health and the environment, and support GMO labeling legislation as well. Locally, the march is organized by Cynthia Rose Kurkowski.

From the Farmers’ Perspective

OSGATA (Organic Seed Growers Association) v. Monsanto was filed by farmers and farm organizations in March 2011 to “invalidate Monsanto’s patents and protect organic and non-GMO family farmers from unwanted genetic contamination of their crops.” Monsanto sees it differently though, according to its website: “We understand the importance of planting and harvesting and always seek to minimize interfering with farmers’ normal activities.” However, unwanted seeds can blow into farmers’ crops, cross-pollinating with traditional crops, which ruins organic farms.

Since the GMO seeds are patented, this gives Monsanto the power to enforce their legal patents. Supporters of OSGATA argue that Monsanto harms independent farmers’ livelihoods worldwide with ruthless patent infringement legislation and its giant status as a near-monopoly means some crops, like corn and soybeans, are virtually impossible to guarantee as organic and GMO-free.

Agent Orange

Monsanto was the largest producer of agent orange during the Vietnam War and “half of agent orange’s chemical compound (2,4-D) and pesticides like Roundup are chemicals being sprayed on GMO crops,” allege The Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance and March Against Monsanto. The groups insinuate that this could negatively impact health, with CVVHA pointing to its members’ own myriad defects and chronic diseases; however, the EPA has said 2,4-D and Roundup are safe for farming.

Halting Influence on Government

Many MAM marchers are also concerned about Monsanto’s influence in government circles. There’s the ability to invest millions in lobbying efforts (as in Washington State) for one, but there’s also a more insidious dynamic at play, according to anti-GMO activists. In 1998, writing for progressive British journal The Ecologist, Jennifer Ferrera noted that several former Monsanto employees held key positions in the U.S.’ Food and Drug Administration. To the activists this creates a troubling conflict of interest in Monsanto and other biotech giants’ favor. Monsanto brushes this off as a logical progression for industry specialists.

MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO ON MAY 24th in a city near you!

LINK

Vietnam War Was Monsanto’s First Herbicidal Operation

The Vietnam War was the Monsanto Company’s first herbicidal operation. Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the two companies that manufactured Agent Orange, the deadly dioxin based herbicide.  The March Against Monsanto (MAM) is scheduled to host global protests at more than 100 sites on May 24. MAM is very vocal about moving beyond a genetically modified organism (GMO ) labeling centered discourse when it comes to exposing Monsanto’s negative impact on the world.

The protest network sponsors projects like Agent Orange Awareness (AOA). Founder of the AOA Kelly L. Derricks comments, “If we fail to realize that March Against Monsanto is not about GMOs alone, then we have already lost the battle.”

Organizers want to inform the public that Monsanto’s devastation stretches across the board. The media often simplifies protesters’ demands against Monsanto’s domination of food resources by not covering Monsanto’s history as a major manufacturer of Agent Orange.

Even though Monsanto was not the only Agent Orange producer, MAM confirms that Monsanto manufactured the chemical at 1,000 times its original potency making them the most deadly contributor to the herbicidal weapons used in the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was used in Operation Ranch Hand which began Monsanto’s role in destroying the global environment and harming the health of millions.

The Organic Consumers Association gives the history of how the toxic chemical was used in the Vietnam War. Approximately 72 million liters of herbicides, a majority Agent Orange, were sprayed by the United States military from 1962 to 1970. More than a million Vietnamese citizens and over 100,000 allied troops came into contact with the toxin. Since then, Monsanto has falsified several studies about the toxic effects of Agent Orange.

Studies that show Agent Orange’s toxic effects exist, but this research has done little to implicate Monsanto’s role in poisoning humans. Studies in the 1970s found that Agent Orange exposure caused, “a very significant, multi-system illness affecting all parts of the nervous system, and causing fatigue and muscle aches.” Groups like AOA and MAM are working to draw attention to the countless studies and life experiences that prove the damaging effects of Agent Orange.

Monsanto  was neither the first nor the only company to create Agent Orange used in the herbicidal operation in the Vietnam War. Dow Chemical also made large quantities of  dioxin, the main ingredient in Agent Orange. Agent Orange victims have spoken out about the dangers of allowing Monsanto and Dow Chemical to continue patenting agricultural products.

Dow AgroSciences will follow Monsanto and release their own version of herbicide resistant GMO corn and soybean seeds in 2015. The Dow herbicide called, Enlist Duo, contains traces of Agent Orange’s dioxin in a mixture of  2,4-D and glyphosate. Many demand that the EPA should prevent Enlist products from being sold in the market because of decades of scientific research that link dioxin toxicity to severe health issues.

Concerns about Monsanto’s role in facilitating the deregulation of the agricultural industry stem from Monsanto’s influence in the federal government. The Food and Drug Administration as well as the Environmental Protection Agency have employed former Monsanto attorneys in their organizations.

On May 24, the world will witness thousands of people protesting the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture. Monsanto’s Agent Orange operation in the Vietnam War was the first insight into the biotech corporation’s future in herbicidal warfare. The protests will expose this connection. Media coverage of last year’s protests was very slim. However, this year is promising to gain greater attention as long as more people become concerned about where their food comes from.

VIDEOS HERE

(Dom's Multiple Myeloma was caused by his exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam)

Dangerous Levels of Roundup Found in GMO Foods Across U.S.

In a recent report released by Norwegian scientists and researchers studying genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other genetically engineered produce in the Unite States, GMO foods across the U.S. have been found to contain absurdly dangerous high, levels of Roundup, a product used to kill weeds and ward off various harmful insects.

As Roundup is known as a weed-killing poison, one should probably ask why this particular substance would be used in the very food which keeps humans alive.

The answer lies in customer demands at the grocery store for flawless produce and goods, but this demand comes at a cost. Hence, the Monsanto Corporation in particular has both used this demand, as well as utilizing cheaper means of producing food, which looks delectable and sells quickly.

However, the chemicals and pesticides used in growing food products across the country, specifically GMO produce, present a grave health risk to many Americans who continue to purchase these foods containing pesticides like Roundup and others every single day.

Showing dangerous levels of glyphosate (the chemical manufactured to kill weeds, and used in Roundup), genetically engineered soy is frequently used in feed for animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, as well as feed for turkeys. Glyphosate has also been frequently found in non-organic foods, mostly in packaged food items and a range of GMO products and foods across the U.S.

According to the study published by ScienceDirect, not only do glyphosate GMO soybeans retain higher traces of glyphosate, but “Organic soybeans showed a more healthy nutritional profile than other soybeans.” The study also says that even though organic soy contained less fiber and omega-6, that organic soy “showed a more healthy nutritional profile than other soybeans.” The study concluded that overall, GMO soybeans are not equivalent to non-GMO soybeans.

GMO foods, with the aid of the kinds of chemicals found in Roundup, are altered in such a way that would not and could not ever appear naturally in nature. Corn, soy, beets, and canola are some of these main crops which are both GMO and are often treated with Roundup.

As the Norwegian study states, weeds are now becoming resistant to glyphosate. Farmers producing GMO produce spray more and more Roundup, and the chemical has infiltrated crops that consumers purchase on a day-to-day basis. 

Allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), non-organic farmers have been allowed to use such chemicals, and this has resulted in increased levels of glyphosate in foods across the U.S. The rise of hard-to-kill super weeds has only seduced the EPA to raise these residue limits by 200 percent, specifically in soybeans.

The conclusion of the report shows that between genetically engineered soybeans, traditional (non-GMO) soybeans and organic soybeans, all GMO soybeans had high levels of glyphosate, and were found to have less nutritional vitamin content than what is found in traditional soy. Organic and non-GMO soybeans did not show any traces of glyphosate. Soybeans which were organic also provided more nutritional benefits, including higher levels of protein and less saturated fats than GMO soybeans.

Based on the studies mentioned, are dangerous levels of Roundup in GMO foods found across the U.S. something that Americans actually want? The general consensus seems to be negative. GMOs in general have already been recently banned in Bavaria, Germany, and the U.S. state of Vermont has now required complete labeling of all products with GMO origin. The task now is to determine how such powerful companies, Monsanto especially, will work to help repair the current system of allowing GMO produce cultivation, or must citizens act in order to halt GMO production?

LINK

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