Robin Roberts Cries Talking About Late Mother & Her New Lease On Life

I'm happy that Robin is doing so well!  I got a real chuckle out of her "Early Bird" restaurant visits.  It felt like Christmas when Dr. Safah told us that we could go to see a movie during a matinee....  and go have a pizza in between the lunch and dinner crowds!  FREEDOM AT LAST!

Story and Video Here

Robin Roberts shared an emotional one-on-one chat with her sister/bone marrow donorSally-Ann on Tuesday's edition of Good Morning America, and we've got the highlights for you right here on RadarOnline.com.

Robin has been battling the blood and bone marrow disorder MDS (Myelodysplastic Syndrome), leading to her September 20 transplant, which she says she looks as "as a clean slate.

"How many people can say at this point in their lives that they get a do-over, that they get a chance to start again?" Robin said. "And that's how I feel. We're all a little bit stronger -- a little bit stronger than we think we are. And that's all we need."

In the interview, Robin got weepy-eyed when her sister brought up their late mother Lucimarian, who died August 30 -- just before Robin was about to take a medical leave from GMA. She left the show early to spent her mother's final days by her side.

"I do believe it was her way of making sure that all of her children could be taken care of," ateary-eyed Robin said. "This is the first time that I have been through any traumatic experience without her being here and that has weighed on me.

"She was there when I took my first breath and what an honor it was to be there when she took her last.”

Robin, who turns 52 Friday, said she's excited to get to go to early bird specials, where the presence of less people means less risk of running into hazardous germs, per her doctor.

Watch the video on RadarOnline.com

"I'm going to get to go out [and] be around people!" she said, noting the massive outpouring of support she's received since she got sick.

"I have felt the prayers. I have felt people lifting me up. I put no small measure on that as the reason that I'm doing as well as I am," the inspirational Robin said.

She told her sister that hers "a journey that kind of zig zags, and there are complications, but I feel stronger every day."

Food Labeling: How to Identify Conventional, Organic and GMO Produce

What can you tell from those numbers on fruit and vegetable stickers?

The price look-up (PLU) code system used by most produce distributors has the side benefit of allowing consumers to identify conventional and organic produce at the grocery store. Even though the defeat ofProposition 37 means that genetically engineered information will not be added to labels at this time, PLU codes do have the potential to identify genetically engineered produce. This video shows you how to read PLU codes to unlock the information that is already right at your fingertips.

VIDEO LINK HERE

Using Price Look-up Codes (PLUs), the Nutshell:

PLU codes are four digit numbers that identify different types of produce. For example, #4011 is the code for a standard yellow banana.
• 
  
• The number 9 prefix added to a PLU signifies that an item is organic. For example, #94011 is the code for an organic yellow banana.
• 
  
• A number 8 prefix added to a PLU signifies that an item is genetically engineered (GE). For example, #84011 is the code for a genetically engineered yellow banana.
• 
  
• PLU codes and their organic prefixes are in wide use but GE codes are rare at best.

Robin Roberts continues to 'climb that mountain'

NEW ORLEANS -- As Air Force brats, my brother Butch, sisters Robin and Dorothy and I traveled to many diverse places around the world. But the journey we embarked upon this year was unlike any this family has ever experienced.

Robin, the baby sister I had watched grow from a child into a strong, courageous woman who beat breast cancer in 2007, was now, five years later, dealing with an illness I had never heard of -- myelodysplastic syndrome, or pre-leukemia.

But the doctors were hopeful that if Robin could find a genetic match for a bone marrow transplant, she could be cured.

We were ecstatic when I was declared a perfect match and I prayed my body would be able to produce.

JUMP

What’s Next in the GMO Battle?

On November 6, after spending $46 million burying California’s voters under an avalanche of deception, Monsanto and their buddies in the pesticide and junk food business declared victory. They had defeated the “right to know”, and successfully protected their “right” to keep you in the dark about whether your food is genetically engineered.

Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the anti-labeling Food Marketing Institute, breathed a sigh of relief after Prop 37 narrowly lost, saying: “This gives us hope that you can… defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters.” But she also expressed concern: “We hope we don’t have too many of them, because you can’t keep doing that over and over again.”

If Ms. Hatcher wants to keep labeling suppressed, it looks like she may be in for a rough couple of years. Because what Monsanto and its allies hadn’t counted on was that despite all their lies and deception, it’s actually pretty hard to convince people that they shouldn’t be allowed to know what they’re eating. And although $46 million managed to put out one fire, it seems to have started about 30 new ones.

Indeed, efforts are already underway to put a similar initiative on the ballot in Washington for the 2013 election (where San Juan County voters chose on November 6 to make growing GMOs illegal in their county). And organizers in 30 other states have also begun building labeling campaigns, under the banner of the Coalition of States for Mandatory GMO labeling.

With 93 percent of the American public supporting the right to know, it looks like it’s going to take a lot more than a one deceptive, high-budget ad campaign to keep those pesky labels at bay.

The War Continues

Many people are choosing to boycott companies that continue to use GMOs and that oppose labeling. Kellogg’s has been a particularly visible target, since the company strives for a healthy image, and yet contributed $632,000 to the fight against Prop 37. For several months, the company’s Facebook page has become something of a marketing embarrassment. It’s plastered with comments by angry consumers calling the company out for fighting GMO labeling, and threatening a boycott until the company changes its ways.

Other consumers are choosing to buy products from companies that are going GMO-free. In fact, consumer demand for non-GMO products is rising fast. The non-profit Non-GMO Project, which offers a third party certification program, has now verified 764 products, and had a record-shattering 189 new enrollment inquiries in October.

More and more people are becoming alarmed about the widespread prevalence of GMOs in the food supply, and are taking steps to steer clear. This could create a tremendous market opportunity for companies that seize the day and get certified. Even shoppers who aren’t terribly concerned about GMOs may be developing more trust in the products that carry the “Non-GMO Project” certification.

For consumers who want to know what is and is not GMO-free, the Food Revolution Network has compiled a collection of resources that includes the non-GMO shopping guide, and the free iPhone and Android app from True Food Network. A list of which foods are likely to contain GMOs is posted by Institute for Responsible Technology here.

A team of organizations, led by Care2 and the Food Revolution Network, have launched a petition demanding that Congress label GMOs that has already generated nearly 50,000 signatures. And efforts of the JustLabelIt petition to the FDA, which launched a year ago and have generated more than 1.3 million signatures, are being renewed in hopes that the FDA might eventually dig itself out of Monsanto’s back pocket.

For the passionate activist, there’s always more you can do, like taking advantage of the educational resources offered for free by the Institute for Responsible Technology, and sharing them with friends. Or lobbying your member of Congress, your mayor, your governor, your local media outlets, or your relatives.

Monsanto would probably like us all to sit alone in the dark, munching on bags of genetically engineered popcorn. But the tide of history is turning, and regardless of how much they spend attempting to deceive us, we will prevail.

Ocean Robbins is founder and co-host (with best-selling author John Robbins) of the 65,000 member Food Revolution Network, an initiative to help you heal your body, and your world… with food. Find out more and sign up here.

LINK

Genetically Modified: The 2 Words the Food Industry Spent $45 Million to Avoid Using

Despite significant popular support for the labeling of genetically modified foods in recent polls, when it came time to vote on election day, Californians rejectedProposition 37, which would have required businesses to label products containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Proponents of Proposition 37 argued that the labeling requirements would provide consumers with valuable information that would allow them to make better purchasing decisions. Opponents countered that labels would mislead consumers by creating the impression that GMOs are harmful to human health.

Many attribute the loss to a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign against the proposition funded largely by agriculture and food companies like Monsanto (MON), PepsiCo (PEP), Coca-Cola (KO), Kraft (KRFT), and Kellogg (K). Opponents of Proposition 37 raised at least $45 million to affect voter sentiment, while supporters of the proposed law -- mostly consumer advocacy groups -- raised only about $8 million.

Was it a fair fight?

Prop 37 advocates complain that their defeat wasn't merely due to being outspent, but also due to opponents using deceptive marketing practices to shift public opinion. One example called out was a mailing to state residents which used the FDA logo and a quote saying, "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'" FDA spokesperson Morgan Liscinsky later pointed out that the FDA did not make this statement or express any opinion on the proposed legislation.

Valuable Tool or Unnecessary Information?

If Prop 37 had passed, the law would have forbidden food companies from labeling foods with GMO ingredients as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," or "all natural." Businesses would have had to label raw GMO produce as "genetically engineered," and to label all processed foods containing GMOs as "partially produced with genetic engineering," or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering."

The law also would have empowered consumers to stand up to companies that label their products inaccurately by making it possible for them to win lawsuits against food companies without having to prove specific damages resulting from the labeling violation.

While Big Ag argued that studies haven't shown GMOs are harmful to human health, Prop 37 advocates point out that most industry-funded studies last only 90 days. And although the Food and Drug Administration has deemed GMOs safe for human consumption, proponents worry that the FDA doesn't actually test these foods before they go to market, and so they don't have sufficient evidence to declare these goods safe.

Other advocates argue that even if GMOs are safe to eat, mandatory labeling would provide valuable information for consumers who worry about the sustainability of GMO farming, and its potential to breed "superbugs."

The fight over Prop 37 isn't just a California issue: Opponents were worried the law would set a precedent for the rest of the country to pick up the anti-GMO torch. In fact, about 93% of the money raised to turn voters against the law came from outside the state.

Advocates in Washington state, Connecticut, and Vermont are pushing to require labeling in their own states. Others are trying to utilize the national awareness arising from California's campaign to gain signatures on a petition asking the FDA to require labeling of GMO foods nationally.

LINK