GMO labeling battle rages on with both sides eyeing national fight

Both sides of the costly and high-stakes GMO labeling battle in Washington state say they see an even bigger national fight ahead despite the apparent defeat of the mandatory labeling measure by Washington state voters this week.

The measure died 47.05 percent to 52.95 percent, according to results updated Thursday night by the Washington Secretary of State’s office as results continued to trickle in. The likely loss followed a similar defeat last year in California when a ballot initiative there also failed to pass.

“It is pretty well beyond any doubt,” said Secretary of State elections division spokesman David Ammons of the apparent defeat of the labeling proposal. Results will be certified on Dec. 4 and are unlikely to change much, he added.

The measures in Washington and California had early strong support in polls. That support ebbed as food and agricultural industry players poured millions of dollars into advertising campaigns spelling out what the industry groups said were deep flaws in the proposed laws. A consortium that includes General Mills, Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Monsanto, ; and other corporate giants, contributed roughly $22 million to kill the labeling law.

Despite the Washington loss, proponents pushing for labeling on food made from genetically modified crops cite progress in 20 other U.S. states, particularly in Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire. They say they will also turn up the pressure on federal lawmakers and regulators.

The 2016 presidential election is a prime target for more ballot initiative efforts due to higher voter turnout, they say.

“We’ll keep bringing the fight until they give in,” said David Bronner, who has contributed more than $2 million to the labeling effort through a California organic soap company he owns. “The commitment of our movement… is huge and growing.”

Opponents of labeling say they do not want to keep waging a multi-million-dollar, state-by-state fight against mandatory GMO labeling. Any labeling should be voluntary and follow standards set at the federal level as state-by-state labeling could create costly problems for food manufacturing and distribution channels, they say.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, (GMA) which represents more than 300 food companies, is funding efforts in 25 states to defeat labeling measures. The group is pushing for a “federal solution that will protect consumers by ensuring that the FDA, America’s leading food safety authority, sets national standards for the safety and labeling of products made with GMO ingredients,” GMA CEO Pamela Bailey said in a statement.

Officials at Monsanto, which spent more than $5 million to kill the Washington measure, say labeling supporters are trying to create the false impression that biotech foods are harmful.

“We absolutely support the consumer’s right to know,” said Robb Fraley, chief technology officer at Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. “But we can’t support misleading labels that infer there is something unsafe about biotech products.”

Monsanto has developed an array of biotech corn, soybeans and other crops that have been genetically altered to repel pests and tolerate direct spraying of herbicides. Those crops are used in a vast array of food products.

The companies say the crops are safe and many scientific studies back those claims. But there are also studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and environmental damage.

Proponents of labeling fear the food and biotech agriculture companies will seek a federal ban to pre-empt more state labeling efforts. But they continue to express confidence in long-term victory.

“There is growing consumer outrage and backlash,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now, a consumer group that support labeling. “We are going to wear them down. We are going to win.”

Source: Reuters

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/despite-loss-in-washington-state-gmo-label-battle-continuesboth-sides-eye-national-fight/

Read More

How to figure out if you are buying Genetically Modified (GMO) Fruits and Veggies

Something that has been bothering me in the past is that you can no longer determine if a fruit or vegetable is genetically modified when shopping in the grocery store. Remember when the tomatoes still had a GMO sticker on it? Well obviously that stuff wasn’t selling because now GMO food doesn’t need to be labeled anymore. Nice! And you thought you are buying wholesome produce whose genetic code hasn’t been messed with.

Well here is a way to identify conventional, organic and GMO food by just looking at the PLU code: (Please note that just because a product is labeled organic, doesn’t mean it wasn’t genetically engineered!)

· A conventionally grown product carries a 4-digit PLU code (Ex: conventionally grown banana: 4011)
· An organic product carries a 5-digit code, starting with the number 9: (Ex: organic banana: 94011)
· A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) product has a 5-digit code, starting with the number 8: (Ex: GE banana: 84011)

All you have to remember: If it starts with an “8” it’s man-made! (and not nature-made) So start reading those PLU labels!

Source: http://www.sbstraining.net/post/2008/12/How-to-figure-out-if-you-are-buying-Genetically-Modified-(GMO)-Fruits-and-Veggies.aspx

Read More

The True Food Shoppers’ Guide to Avoiding GMOs

Today, thousands of products on supermarket shelves are made with ingredients from genetically modified (also known as genetically engineered [GE]) crops. But GM foods are not labeled in the U.S., despite warnings from doctors and scientists that these foods may not be safe in the diet or the environment. This lack of mandatory labeling can make it difficult to determine which products are made with GM ingredients and which are not. The True Food Shoppers Guide is designed to give you the tools you need to make informed purchasing decisions.

The True Food Shoppers Guide also arms you with valuable information regarding common GM ingredients, as well as brands to look for, and to look out for. The application includes a “Four Simple Tips” section, which offers easy ways to avoid GM ingredients, a “Supermarkets and GMOs” section to help consumers identify GM and non-GMO private-label store brands, and a rbGH and rbGH-free dairy guide.
In addition to a list of brands that produce foods with no GM content, the application also offers contact information for companies that do use GM ingredients. This feature enables consumers to personally voice their opposition to the use of GM foods directly to the parties involved. As a result, the app serves not only as a shopping guide and teaching tool, but one that can be used for widespread advocacy as well. The app also has a “Take Action” section allowing people to contact state and federal agencies and officials to demand better regulatory oversight, safety testing and labeling laws for GM foods and crops.

The True Food Shoppers Guide was compiled because you have the right to know what’s in your food!
The Guide was compiled primarily from direct communications with food producers. In some cases, we received company policy statements from consumers who passed these on to us. In addition to written statements, we spoke to many company representatives to clarify or assess their position. Products on the RED list contain ingredients that come from the most common GE crops (corn, soy, canola, cotton). Companies with products on this list have confirmed that their products may have or are likely to be made with GE ingredients, or have not denied using GE foods when given the opportunity to do so. Companies on the GREEN list have made a concerted effort to avoid GE ingredients and have company policies asserting their position on avoiding GE foods.
As ingredients change in products all the time, the best thing is to check the ingredients list of the products you buy often. Keep a look out for:
Corn: corn oil, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal
Soy: soy protein, soy lecithin, soy oil, soy sauce, soy isolates
Canola: canola oil
Cotton: cottonseed oil
http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/

Organic companies against labeling GMOs?

If Proposition 37 in California passes, foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients would be required by law to have a label saying so. This would be a huge step forward for those of us who care about not eating GM food. It would also be a step forward for those who think we just have the right to know what is in our food.

Unfortunately, while the proposition has a lot of people support, it has significantly less funding in support of it. Companies have raised $23.5 million to fight Prop 27, while only $2.78 million has been raised in support of it. With GM ingredients in so many store-bought brands, it is hardly surprising that money is being thrown against this prop. However, what is surprising is how some of our organic purchases could be helping the cause against labeling GM foods!

The Cornucopia Institute released a fact sheet sharing many brands that were under a “corporate parent” that gave even millions of dollars to fight against GM labeling. These brands include Larabar, Naked, Horizon Organics, Odwalla and other familiar brands.
http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/organic-companies-against-labeling-gmos

Free boycode guide
http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/

Read More

Monsanto and Pepsi trying to stop GMO labeling law in Washington State

A Washington State ballot measure to label food featuring genetically modified crops is under fire as food and chemical corporations pour millions of dollars against the campaign.

On November 5, voters will head to the polls to decide whether or not to label food containing crops that have been genetically modified, but what started out as a landslide victory in the making has turned into a tight contest amidst massive corporate spending.

Supporters of ballot measure I-522 argue that this is an issue of transparency, and letting consumers know when their food contains genetically modified organisms (GMO) would enable them to make more educated decisions. They also say that GMO are not safe for human or animal consumption, and cause environmental problems by promoting the use of certain farming chemicals.

Opponents, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), claim that not only is genetically modified food safe to eat, but also that the initiative would mistakenly cause people to think there’s something wrong with products featuring GMO labels. The end result would be that the cost of food at grocery stores would rise and place an unnecessary burden on shoppers.

"It would require tens of thousands of common food and beverage products to be relabeled exclusively for Washington state unless they are remade with higher-priced, specially developed ingredients," Brian Kennedy, GMA spokesman, said to Al Jazeera America. "The measure will increase grocery costs for a typical Washington family by hundreds of dollars per year."

Both sides have raised about $28 million combined in campaign spending, but the vast majority of the cash – $22 million, to be precise – has come from groups opposing the bill. The GMA, a group acting on the behalf of more than 300 different food and beverage companies, has raised $11 million to push back against I-522. Other corporations like PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, and Monsanto are major fundraising contributors. Monsanto alone contributed roughly $5.4 million in funds, according to Reuters.

Read more: http://rt.com/usa/washington-gmo-law-food-980/

Read More

Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled

 Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world’s most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland’s prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.

But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.

October 24, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson

Contrary to the belief of some in the scientific community, Dr Arpad Pusztai does not have horns or a malevolent cackle. Nor does he inhabit an imposing gothic mansion bought with the proceeds of guest appearances as an eco-hero. In fact, he lives in a modest semi in Aberdeen.

This elderly man is one of the most divisive figures in biology. Many blame him for tilting the balance in the PR battle over GM food towards public rejection. His research on GM potatoes - which came explosively into the public spotlight in a World in Action programme in August 1998 - has been dismissed as poorly done, muddled and even fabricated. Yet to anti-GM campaigners he is a hero - the scientist who stood up to the establishment and, as a result, had his career squashed at the behest of shadowy forces in the GM industry and the government.

"I think it did a lot of damage because … the vast majority of people were somewhat neutral at the time," said Professor Chris Leaver, a plant scientist and strong supporter of GM at Oxford University. "I think the NGOs … decided that they would make a play using him. I think he got hijacked and then he got out of his depth."

The affair finished off Pusztai’s research career (although at the time he was already 69) and affected his health. His supporters were appalled by his treatment at the hands of the publicly funded Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, which he had served with distinction for most of his career. He was regarded as a world expert on plant lectins - defensive proteins that kill insects and other invaders - with over 300 scientific papers, including two in the prestigious journal Nature.

"I would have characterised [his treatment] as disgraceful. I don’t see how any reputable scientist … could be treated in this way," said Dr Stanley Ewen, a pathologist who was then at the University of Aberdeen and who worked with Pusztai.

Having said of GM food in 1998: “If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it”, and that “I find it’s very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs”, it’s easy to imagine Pusztai was ideologically opposed to GM. But this is far from the truth, he tells me. “I’m strictly science-based … It is not an ideology for me.” Still, he confesses that his opposition to the technology has hardened over the years, and he still won’t eat it. “Even now, I am not a campaigner. I have never belonged to any organisation campaigning for or against it.”

                                            Arpad Pusztai

He felt he had a duty to speak out, “just to inject some caution into this business”, he says. “Make no mistake, this is an irreversible technology. It is no good 50 years later to say: ‘We should have known.’”


  Concerns aired

Pusztai clearly wanted his concerns to be aired publicly, but he does not come across as a man who relished or courted publicity. He was very happy, for example, that the institute’s director, Philip James, shielded him from interview requests. “I was quite happy with this … I am an academic scientist. I’ve never been exposed to this,” he says, “I’m really not a very media person.”

Pusztai says James, on the other hand, was anxious to exploit the media attention. “The director kept running around like a blue-arsed fly. This was a tremendous public relations business for him.”

James even put in a complimentary phone call to Pusztai that August evening. “I telephoned Pusztai immediately after the broadcast to congratulate him on the modest way in which he had presented the evidence on the programme,” says James, although he denies relishing the publicity. He says he had grave doubts about the interview going ahead in the first place.

By this stage, Pusztai was feeling extremely uncomfortable about what he was hearing on news bulletins about his own research. “I heard things that really disturbed me,” he says. “My head was buzzing … the whole thing was getting totally out of hand.”

The results that Pusztai had hinted at in his interview were a comparison of rats fed ordinary potatoes and potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops. The rats on the GM diet grew less well and had immune problems even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects at high concentrations. His conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. The GM potatoes were not a commercial variety and were never intended for human consumption, but the lectin modification - which made them poisonous to insects - was an experimental model for other GM varieties.

But newspaper stories generated confusion over the nature of the genetic modification. These articles refer to potatoes modified with a lectin gene from jackbean that is poisonous to mammals. But no one can agree on where this came from. The misinformation was formalised in a press release issued by the Rowett. James says Pusztai approved it. Pusztai says he was not aware of it until it was published. Either way, the jackbean experiments that never were have proved extremely damaging to Pusztai. Even now, GM scientists dismiss Pusztai’s work on the grounds of a supposed schoolboy error: of course the rats suffered, they say, they were being fed potatoes that were genetically modified to produce a poison.

The day after the World in Action programme, Pusztai’s boss changed his mood from congratulation to condemnation. “My change in attitude was dramatic because I discovered that Pusztai … had never conducted the studies which he had claimed,” says James, an accusation that Pusztai strongly denies. He says he never claimed to have done the jackbean experiments. “He just simply wanted to put a real cap on it,” says Pusztai. “The simplest way to do it was to suspend all research activities into this business.” Pusztai’s supporters claim that James came under pressure from Downing Street to put a lid on the affair.

   Suspended and silenced

James suspended Pusztai and used misconduct procedures to seize his data. Pusztai’s rolling annual contract was not renewed and he was banned from speaking publicly. Pusztai says he wanted to publish his results but was concerned that James would veto any approach to an academic journal.

In 1998, if James had hoped that gagging Pusztai would make the affair go away he was wrong. Continued media speculation was doing considerable damage to public confidence in GM food and this prompted the Royal Society - the UK’s premier scientific academy - to enter the fray.

Although none of Pusztai’s results had yet been published, it set about reviewing the information that did exist - an internal report written by Pusztai, an audit of the data produced by the Rowett, and an independent statistical analysis carried out by Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland. The data was sent to six anonymous reviewers. The subsequent report savaged Pusztai’s results, but he remains defiant.

The Royal Society putdown was predictable. The reviewers had placed a hotchpotch of lab reports and statistical analyses that were never intended for publication under intense scrutiny. “There was practically nothing in it but numbers,” says Pusztai. He and Ewen point out that peer reviewers had praised the methodological details of the experiment when their application for a £1.6m research grant from the Scottish Office was given the go-ahead.

Some of the disputed data did eventually see the light of day in October 1999, when Ewen and Puztai published a paper in the prestigious medical journal the Lancet. Because of its controversial nature, the data paper was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light. The paper - which used data held by Ewen and so was not subject to veto by James - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue compared with rats fed on normal potatoes. It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.

I put it to Pusztai that he is demanding a level of testing for GM food that is not applied to conventional plant breeding. Radiation and mutation-causing chemicals, for example, are standard techniques used to create new varieties, and both can create unexpected genetic changes. He bats this away. “Two negatives don’t make a positive,” he responds. “It doesn’t mean that I agree with those techniques.”

The difference with GM, he says, is that there is a political agenda at work. “Ninety-five per cent of GM is coming from America, so naturally it is in their interests to push it,” he says, “I have no ideological grounds against Monsanto [the biotechnology company]. For me it’s a scientific argument. They have not done a proper job [of testing], and they are just using their political and economic muscle to foist it on us.”

Does he regret speaking publicly about his research prior to publication - generally regarded as a cardinal sin by scientists? “No,” he says. “I was publicly funded and I thought the public had a right to know.” He also rejects the notion that he would have achieved more by waiting until the science was in print. Since he went public, he estimates he has given between 150 and 200 lectures around the world. And in 2005 he was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists.

"Even our best scientific publications - I don’t think they are read by more than 50 people," he says. "This had impact … to my damage, but it had impact."

Source:http://truthabouthumanfood.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientist-that-discovered-gmo-health.htmltp://truthabouthumanfood.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientist-that-discovered-gmo-health.html

Read More

Indian Farmers Trapped and Desperate

The number of farmer suicides is the largest in human history is estimated to have reached 300,000+ and rising as we speak.

India has the largest number of smallholder farmers in the World, 600 million by some estimates. From this army of workers one impoverished desperate man, or indeed woman, with a noose of debt around their neck takes his or her own life on average every thirty minutes, A statistic barely comprehensible, representing the tidal wave of suicides that has swept through the farming community in the last 15 years.

The agrarian crisis of which farmer suicides are a tragic consequence is a mega calamity, rooted, P. Sainath, rural editor for The Hindu states, in one fundamental cause: ‘the drive towards corporate farming’, predicated by the “predatory commercialization of the countryside”, that is forcing “the biggest displacement in Indian history”. Shocking and destructive it should be seen as part of a greater whole of interconnected issues facing India. Sainath makes this clear, “don’t detach this crisis from the overall political, economic social direction of the country, he says.

The number of farmer suicides - the largest in human history is estimated to have reached 300,000+ and rising as we speak. Add to this the 400 a day who attempt suicide and fail, the 2,200 that dailyquit farming and the one and a half million family members affected by suicides, plus the millions facing the very issues that are driving the tragedy, and the scale of the inferno begins to be clear. Shocking, as they are, these figures are an indication only; women are one of eight groups who are generally excluded from official data because most do not have title to land. A woman is not classed as a farmer, she is a farmer’s wife, and her suicide is not included in the figures, nor are The Center For Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University’s (HRGJ) report on farmer suicides tells us, “family members of farmers who have committed suicide—who themselves take over farming land, and subsequently commit suicide because of debt”, and less surprisingly the Dalit and Adivasi (indigenous) people are also invisible to a government who ignores them in death as in life.

The major cause of this epidemic is indebtedness to banks and moneylenders, hiding behind the debt however is twenty years of market liberalization at the hands of the government that has withdrawn all agricultural support, failed to invest in irrigation, improve the availability of rural credit, or provide farmers with alternative seed purchasing options – other than GM shopping. HRGJ convey government statistics stating: “that 241,679 farmers in India committed suicide between 1995 and 2009”, the majority are cash crop farmers, growing cotton being particularly hazardous work. Suicides have been highest in the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, all high cotton producing areas.

Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.

Growing disadvantage

As a result of economic liberalization, designed and sold by the parents of globalization or market fundamentalism; the IMF and the World Bank, India has become integrated into the global market and what Sainath calls ‘McEconomics– it tastes the same everywhere’. The state has increasingly withdrawn from the public sector and become “more interventionist on behalf of the corporate world and the super elite.” As state support for farmers was withdrawn India opened up to huge foreign corporations and their equally mega native partners.

The foreign multinationals were at a huge advantage because as HRGJ makes clear, “the price of their products was set artificially low as a result of agricultural subsidies in their home countries,” affecting the costs to Indian (and African) farmers, secondly and equally devastating, “the Indian government’s removal of quotas, duties, and tariffs on imports made it cheaper for these entrants to import their products into the country.” Whilst these policies implemented some twenty years ago have as HRGJ makes clear “helped usher in dramatic economic growth this growth has been unevenly distributed, largely benefiting the nation’s elite, while the majority continues to endure grinding poverty.” Sound familiar; political loyalty in corporate politics lying firmly with the corporations, the duty of politicians in market fundamentalism being continual accelerated growth and maximum profit, no matter the human or environmental cost.

Genetically modified mayhem

With the invasion of multinational corporate man came his agricultural weapon of choice, GM modified cottonseed. The Monsanto Bt seed has flooded the Indian market, to the extent that in some Indian states it is now impossible to buy non-Bt seed, despite the unconvincing evidence to its efficacy. With no choice and convinced by blanket advertising and misleading demonstrations made in ideal conditions, 95% of farmers take loans and invest in GM Bt seeds that, the New York Times (16/10/12) report, “can cost three to eight times the cost of conventional seeds”. In addition to authorized distributors a black market has thrived, that as shortages appear, can set “prices as high as 2,000 rupees ($38) per packet, leading to a profusion of bootlegged seeds illegally marketed as genetically modified products.”

Costs of seed, fertilizers and pesticides, all incidentally supplied by the same company, have increased year on year. One farmer relates in the NY Times how “the old pesticide used to cost us 200 rupees per litre…. Now I have to pay between 2,000 to 3,000 rupees. And I need to apply it more and more every year.” With low yields and low market rates as well as the collapse of government investment Indian farmers are increasingly dependent on loans resulting in a debt cycle that is inescapable.

As well as costing the earth the Bt cottonseed demands a great deal more water, a fact that is being hidden from Indian farmers unable to read the English instructions and water warnings on seed packaging - an accidental corporate oversight, no doubt. With poor irrigation, most farmers rely on rainfall to feed crops. When the monsoon rains fail, so does the crop, leaving the farmer with a massive debt to service and the prospect of further loans to continue farming the following year. The lifeblood of the Indian farmer is in danger of becoming even more scarce as the government goes ahead with the privatization of water (as we collectively shake our heads in disbelief) and irrigation pathways, sold no doubt into the hands of Indian corporations. One doubts there are farmer, Dalit or Adivasi cooperatives in the bidding - so much for participatory democracy. 

Critics of GM seeds maintain, “the solution to increasing costs and spiralling debt is a shift toward organic and eco-friendly farming methods.” The NY Times reports, “and these are low technology, simple to use, not costly methods – you don’t have the high costs of pesticides or genetically modified seeds.” Monsanto unsurprisingly offer a different answer to this social tragedy: “Buy more BT seed,” they suggest,” with the hope of increasing yields. Unsurprisingly, they dodge any responsibility for farmer suicides, asserting that claims attributing debt to the impact of the thirsty, expensive Bt seed are spurious and “misinformed”. Corporate responsibility beginning and ending at the door marked profit.

A Legacy of debt

A suicidal farmer’s debt does not, alas, die with him: loans merely become the responsibility of the wife (or husband) of the victim, who in many cases repeat the final desperate act, some families have witnessed two or three suicides. Dowries add to the mountain of debt for families in poverty, and widows under the unbearable pressure of huge debt and the burden of finding a husband for their daughters, may in desperation take their own lives.

The cycle of debt has created a spiral of death and extended multiple suffering; Children whose Father or Mother commits suicide are forced to quit school or university and take up the reins of the farm. Sainath describes one young man, symptomatic of many thousands, “I see a child trying to be a man whose eyes tell you how scared he is, pitchforked into a position he is not ready for”.  Entrapment the order of the day, keeping people in a position of permanent anxiety, depleted of energy and with no state support, completely at the mercy of market forces and unable to resist. In the 1960s and 70s, when agricultural reforms where tabled in India, Sainath relates there was a peasant revolt, “in the ‘1990s and 2000s there is mass suicide and despair,” outcomes causing less obstruction to the corporate political plan, of the commercialization of everything and everyone, everywhere.

In the face of what is suicide on epidemic proportions the Indian government is guilty of appalling neglect, moral and legal - they are signatories to all the key international human rights conventions and are obliged to respect, protect and observe the human rights of farmers and their families. Instead, and in keeping with corporate politics, a plethora of fundamental human rights are being ignored. HRGJ list the rights breached, as: “the right to life; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to work; the right to food; the right to water; the right to health; and the right to an effective remedy among other rights.” Instead of meeting its responsibilities the government has followed the bureaucratic line of least resistance and set up a series of committees to examine the crisis. It is the Indian way, according to Sainath: “You keep forming committees until somebody gives you the report you want. There have been 13 reports on farmer suicides, for example.” These are pointless distractions from a government that, whilst ignoring the human rights of the most vulnerable members of Indian society, subsidizes the wealthy and procrastinates as farmers in deep despair drink pesticide or rat poison to escape the interminable torture of debt.

Learn more:

http://www.nationofchange.org/indian-farmers-trapped-and-desperate-1359469777

Read More

Monsanto’s Failed GM Maize Pushed on Africa

Today the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) released a new report ‘Africa bullied to grow defective Bt Maize: the failure of Monsanto’s MON810 maize in South Africa’, showing how Monsanto’s GM maize, which utterly failed in SA, is now being foisted on the rest of the continent, through ‘sleight of hand’.

Read the Full Report Here

Independent scientists have shown that Monsanto’s GM maize variety, MON810 – which has been growing in SA for 15 years – has completely failed due to the development of massive insect resistance, leading to the GM maize being withdrawn from the SA market. Monsanto has compensated farmers who were forced to spray their crops with pesticides to control the pests, calling into serious question the very rationale for GM crops.

According to the Director of the ACB, Mariam Mayet, ‘Monsanto got the science completely wrong on this one. Independent biosafety scientists have discovered that the inheritance of resistance in African stem borers is a dominant, not recessive, trait as erroneously assumed. Hence the insect resistance management strategies that Monsanto developed, and accepted by our regulators, based on these erroneous assumptions, were utterly ineffective.’

Undeterred, Monsanto is now pushing its flop GM maize onto the rest of the continent. According to the ACB report, Monsanto has now donated its MON810 GM technology ‘royalty-free’ to a Gates Foundation/Monsanto funded ‘philanthropic’ project, Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA). WEMA is being rolled out in Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The defective GM maize is set to be approved for commercial growing by 2015.

WEMA was first touted for a good number of years, with much fanfare, as a charitable project intent on bringing drought tolerant maize varieties to resource poor African small farmers. However, with a sleight of hand and stony silence, WEMA has included MON810 into the mix. Field trials with MON810 are already running in Kenya and Uganda. In response to the project, the Mozambican government is now changing its biosafety laws to allow for the cultivation of GM crops while WEMA is pressurising the Tanzanian government to change the country’s biosafety law that will hold Monsanto strictly liable for damages that may arise.

According to researcher with the ACB, Haidee Swanby, ‘WEMA is a convenient vehicle for Monsanto to gain regulatory approval for its controversial technology in African countries. However, “royalty-free” seed simply means that resource strapped commercial farmers will get the seed at the same price as hybrid seed, which means that these seeds will be prohibitively expensive. The patents on the gene sequences still reside with Monsanto, and farmers will have to pay premium prices for the GM seeds.’

The ACB report also highlights that Monsanto’s MON810 GM trait has been genetically engineered into a local Egyptian maize variety called Ajeeb. ‘Ajeeb Yieldgard’ has now been patented by Monsanto and ‘approved’ for commercial growing through circumvention of the Egyptian biosafety law. Significantly, the report highlights that the Egyptian government has published peer reviewed independent and publically funded biosafety studies on MON810 showing serious risks to human and animal health.

Said Swanby, ‘The scariest revelation is that GM producers and regulatory authorities are making it all up as they go along, while the massive biotech PR machinery spreads the myth that these crops are connected to feeding the poor in Africa.’

Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/10/24/monsantos-failed-gm-maize-pushed-on-africa/#.UmwC_XAy0rV

Read More

Bombshell: Mexico Bans GMO Corn

Yet another nation has joined against the planting of Monsanto’s genetically modified creations, with a Mexican judge launching a complete ban on the growth of GMO corn field trials that were planned to move forward.

Specifically, the judge cited numerous environmental risks regarding the implementation of GMO corn into the food supply of the nation, knowing full well that unleashing genetically modified strains of corn into nature can lead to a complete loss of genetic integrity. And while the notion is already disturbing, the reality is that we’ve already seen incidents of large-scale genetic contamination on behalf of Monsanto. Going back to the escape of genetically modified wheat in traditional crops, for example, is a perfect example of genetic contamination in action.

Even Reuters reported on the spread of the GM wheat beyond Monsanto test fields — a contamination event that incited lawsuits from farmers who wanted nothing to do with Monsanto’s GMOs.

Mexican citizens and even high ranking judges can see this reality, and Mexico is now joining nations like Peru and Hungary in taking a stand against Monsanto’s complete domination of the international food supply. The announcement reminds me of Hungary’s direct opposition to Monsanto’s GM maize, in which Hungarians actually burned acres of genetically modified crops to the ground. It was this monumental opposition, in fact, that really ignited a new wave of activism against Monsanto after my 2011 article on the subject achieved hundreds of thousands of shares on social media worldwide.

This decision reminds us of just how much power we truly do wield against Monsanto. As reported in Grist, it was this Mexican judge who went against the powerful Monsanto-backed lobbyists that were seeking to infiltrate the food supply with Monsanto’s mutated varieties. And by doing so, armed with the support of the people, Monsanto has been given the boot.

Source:

naturalsociety.com

http://worldtruth.tv/bombshell-mexico-bans-gmo-corn/

Read More

Pepsi, Coke, Kellogg & Kraft Pulling GMOs from Europe — But Not the US

Thanks to pressure from European countries on food providers to stop using GMOs, corporations like Kellogg, Heinz, Kraft, Coke and Pepsi are now ceasing sales GMO products– at least in certain territories in Europe. Even agricultural giant Monsanto has pulled its bid to have new GMO crops approved in Europe.

However, these companies continue to operate as normal in United States. Their marketing efforts to pass off GMO food as the same as regular food are still succeeding, due in large part to the high power lobbyists that manipulate the American political system at the top.

This power is not going unchecked, though. Many consumers are now demanding United States follow the way of Europe and how it treats GMOs. In some places legislation is even being passed to give consumers the right to know what’s in their food.

Grassroots Progress Building Momentum

Even though the United States as a whole isn’t waking up to the dangers of GMOs, individual cities and regions are taking steps to fight back against big agriculture. Recently, Connecticut became the first state to pass a law requiring GMOs to be labeled. Soon, Connecticut shoppers can know whether or not the food on their shelves contains GMOs, allowing consumers the freedom to choose whether or not they want to risk their health with genetically modified produce. This also makes it harder for companies to hide the fact that they use genetically modified foods in their products.

Shortly after Connecticut passed its law, Maine passed a similar law. Unfortunately, political lobbying has made these laws ineffective — at least until other states joining them pass similar legislation. However, the fact that these laws came so far is proof U.S. consumers are waking up and wanting to know what’s in their food.

Now, Massachusetts voters are trying to have a similar measure passed. The Boston city Council unanimously voted in favor of a resolution to ban foods containing genetically modified ingredients until they have been more scientifically scrutinized and labeled for consumers. Even though some states have already rejected GMO laws (like California), it’s clear anti-GMO consumer interest is growing.

Consumers Should Have the Right to Know What’s in Their Food

While labelling seems like progress, some claim GMO labels are a scare tactic to push consumers away from genetically modified food. However, this argument is a fallacy. Consumers have the right to consume whatever they want, but they should also have the right to know what they’re consuming. If someone wants their diet to be full of unhealthy chemicals, dangerous fats and deadly ingredients, they have that right. (In fact, many people do make this choice – that’s why obesity is an epidemic in United States.)

It isn’t right that big companies can effectively lie to consumers and given the impression their food is all natural and healthy when in fact it has been genetically modified. Fortunately, more and more people – and countries – are getting on board with this idea and demanding the situation be changed, one state at a time.

The U.S. Needs to Catch Up

With more and more European companies banning GMOs, one could conclude that developed countries are getting wise to the dangers of genetically modified crops. However, United States is still far behind it’s treatment of GMO foods.

The fact that cynical corporations can still deceive U.S. consumers into buying GMO food without consumer knowledge shows how far we have to go. It’s through grassroots efforts and growing the anti-GMO momentum in the U.S. and Canada that pro-consumer, anti-GMO legislation can finally be passed. Then, companies will no longer be able to market inferior, dangerous GMO products to U.S. consumers that won’t sell in Europe.

Source: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/pepsi-coke-kellogg-kraft-pulling-gmos-from-europe-but-not-the-us/

Read More

Study Finds GMO Long-term Effects are Terminal

These are images of rats that have been consuming genetically modified corn with trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer. Studies have shown that this has caused the rats to develop tumors, extensive organ damage, and premature death. 

This is the conclusion from a new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn. This is something they never do before releasing it to the public.

A few bits from the study:

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal

The study was led by a man named Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen and it was the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of eating GMOs. Ya I know what your thinking... WHAT? Ya... First Ever. Normally you would expect the food be tested and approved for long-term effects but no. 

- Obviously and literally - "Ain't no body got time for that"

Some quotes from the report:

"The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."

"Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."

You might want to think twice or even thrice before buying your next set of shopping.

Want some sources? Sure you do -

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsanto-weedkiller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article

How about another? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM-foods-French-study-finds-rats-fed-controversial-crops-suffered-tumours-multiple-organ-failure.html

The international journal of biological sciences:

 http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

And if you live in California - Prop 37 is still pushing to label these foods:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Read more at http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/02/study-finds-gmo-long-term-effects-are.html#oIOMUbpw8c1yXHBD.99

Read More

The Power of Labeling: Preserving & Building a Non-GMO Food Supply

When California Proposition 37 failed to pass at the polls last November, all of us who advocate for the right to know were profoundly disappointed. However, the measure, which would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, garnered more than 6 million votes, and was actually a great case of "losing forward." Despite outspending of nearly 5 to 1, the initiative lost by just 2 percentage points and attracted a significant amount of national media attention.

Inspired by California's effort, nearly 40 states are now working on mandatory labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In June, Connecticut and Maine became the first states to pass mandatory GMO labeling -- though in both cases additional states need to pass similar measures in order for the laws to take effect.

This November, voters in Washington State will have a chance to pass I-522, a similar but improved version of the Prop 37 legislation. Since January, organizers in California have been sharing lessons learned with their peers in Washington, giving I-522 a solid foundation for success. As a state with an economy focused on exports--a lot of which go to countries with GMO bans--Washington is uniquely concerned about GMO contamination. With the looming threat of genetically engineered apples, salmon, and wheat--all quintessential Washington crops--even conventional farmers in the state are becoming concerned about the economic impact of GMOs.

The non-GMO movement is, at its core, about the right to know. Because GMOs are unstable and experimental, they are subject to mandatory labeling in more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, Russia, China, and all of the European Union. More research is needed to understand the long-term health and environmental implications of genetic engineering, but in the United States that research is essentially being conducted on the public, without consent.

Despite biotechnology industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offers increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connecting GMOs to health problems and environmental damage has triggered a massive public backlash.

At the federal level, the Just Label It campaign has collected more than 1.3 million signatures on a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) petition demanding mandatory GMO labeling. Although the FDA has yet to respond, this is more than twice as many signatures as have ever been received on any food petition in the agency's history.

Americans are also voting in record numbers with their wallets. The Non-GMO Project--a nonprofit organization that oversees North America's only third-party non-GMO verification, including ongoing ingredient testing--has quickly seen its label become the fastest growing in the natural products industry. With annual sales of well over $3.5 billion, Non-GMO Project Verified products are now found everywhere from independent food co-ops to big-box retailers.

When the Non-GMO Project was founded in 2007, mandatory labeling efforts had almost completely stalled. In that void, the project's strategy was to leverage the power of the marketplace, using supply and demand principles to preserve and build a non-GMO food supply. When it began, skeptics far outweighed supporters; many said it would be impossible to get a critical mass of food companies to voluntarily adopt such rigorous standards. Six years later, the progress is astonishing. More than 1,000 brands are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program, and more than 14,000 products have successfully earned the verification.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-rodale/the-power-of-labeling-pre_b_4098539.html

Read More

3 Companies Using GMOs in Baby Formula

It seems with the many reports of birth defects, organ failure, cancer, and other unsavory health conditions associated with GMO consumption, we should limit the use of GMO in baby products. After all, babies are very sensitive to the foods they consume, and we already know that pesticides found in mother’s milk can be damaging. Below you will learn of three companies which represent more than 90% of baby formula sales in the US that won’t consider removing GMOs from your baby’s food.

Health-Damaging GMOs in Baby Formula
1. Similac
2. Enfamil

• Enfamil with Iron

• Enfamil with low Iron

• Enfamil Lacto Free

• Enfamil 22

• Enfamil Next Step (both soy and milk varieties)

• Enfamil Nutramigen

• Enfamil Pro-Soybee

3. Gerber Good Start

Why would we knowingly feed our children GMOs before it has really been proven to be ‘safe’ as Monsanto, BASF, and other companies like Abbott Laboratories, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Nestlé USA, the company who wants to own water rights, tout?

If you feed your baby one of the following three infant formulas, you are perhaps, unknowingly, feeding them GMO corn, sugar beets, and soy, since they are often used these companies’ products:

One of the widest used brands and often given out for ‘free’ at hospitals, this baby formula is made by Abbott Laboratories. The company is selling you a can of baby formula for over $100 that is full of GMO poisons. You could contact the company to ask why it would include GMOs, or, you can just boycott it altogether. Shareholders are supposed to vote on whether the company is able to continue to use GMO in baby formulas. Abott Laboratories is one of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies – go figure.

Read: Mother Threatened for Feeding Baby Goat’s Milk Instead of GMO Formula

Another baby formula often given out as ‘free’ samples to new mothers iis made by Mead Johnson Nutrition. Their website boasts, ‘Enfamil, scientifically designed to meet the nutritional needs of newborns and infants.’ The following Mead Johnson formulas are known to have GMO toxins:

The GMO-riddled formula made by Nestlé USA is perhaps the most questionable since the company has knowingly tried to ‘patent’ water and make it a commodity though it is all part of life itself on this planet. Do we really want to trust a company who wants privatize water with feeding our children health foods? The company went GMO free in South Africa, according to Corporate Action Network, but continues to sell American families the contaminated GMO formula we feed our babies every day.

Nestlé USA and Mead Johnson Nutrition have dismissed calls to remove genetically-modified organisms (GMO) from their infant formula products in the US – citing the approved use of GMOs by several national and global regulatory bodies.

You can boycott all these companies and start making your own home-made, natural baby formula without toxic chemicals and pesticides and nasty GMOs. The assistant director of the FDA, Nick Duy, says we shouldn’t make our own baby formula, but why isn’t he ousting these companies for using questionable (at best) and health-damaging GMOs?

Source: http://naturalsociety.com/3-companies-using-toxic-gmos-baby-formula/

Read More