Saturday, April 2, 2016


Enclosed is my response to the OpEd against mandatory GE labeling that ran in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, March 29, 2016.  Unfortunately, they didn't include all the hyperlinks I included; only a few of them.

Michael Hansen


Consumers deserve to know what’s in their food

By Michael Hansen   APRIL 02, 2016

TIME AND again, national surveys indicate that upwards of 90 percent of
consumers want foods produced using genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) to be labeled as such — in fact, a recent Consumer Reports survey
placed the number at 92 percent. 

Of course, the right of everyone to know what they are eating is largely
self-evident. But, from a scientific standpoint, is genetically engineered
food really different enough to warrant a special label?

First developed in the 1970s, genetic engineering techniques allow genetic
material to be moved between living things in ways that can never occur in
nature. As an extreme example, human genes have been moved into rice
plants to make the plants produce certain proteins normally found in breast
milk. More routinely, most genetically engineered crops on the market
contain genes introduced from bacteria and viruses. 

A gene introduced into salmon from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout enables
engineered salmon to reach market size significantly faster than
nonengineered salmon.

Consumers have come to expect that their food will be labeled if it is frozen, 
made from concentrate, irradiated, or homogenized — and the law has
delivered on that expectation. All labeling, including required printing of
ingredients, additives, and nutritional content, exists to give consumers the
power to make free and informed choices about what they are putting in their
bodies. Consumers have long prized the transparency that allows them to
make a clear choice between, say, frozen and unfrozen corn. Is it too much
to ask that they are provided with the same level of transparency when
choosing between traditional corn and corn that has been genetically engineered to
express a toxin normally found in bacteria — a much more significant 

Transparency is a value unto itself, but there are other reasons why consumers
might want to know if their food has been genetically engineered. The vast
majorityof soybean, corn, canola, and sugar beets have been engineered to
tolerate being sprayed with the weed killer glyphosate. Between 1996, when
GMO food crops were first allowed in USagriculture, and 2012,
 glyphosate use increased from roughly 20 million pounds to 280 million 
pounds, making it byfar the most widely-used pesticide 

in US agriculture. Last year, the World Health Organization’s 
International Agency for Research on Cancer unanimously
concluded that glyphosate, previously thought by pesticide
regulators to be largely benign,
Widespread herbicide use on genetically engineered crops throughout
the Corn Belt also appears primarily responsible fora large decline in
monarch butterfly populations, due to wiping out most of the 
milkweed on which they depend. These potentially severe health and
environmental impacts are reasons why consumers want to know whether
their food has been genetically engineered. Despite the touted potential for
GMO crops to produce more nutritious foods or to feed the world, little has
materialized so far. Genetically engineered crops have not significantly
increased yields beyond what conventional breeding or improvement in
other agricultural practices have attained, and there are far more cost-effective
and productive ways to address world hunger.

The US Senate acted in the clear interest of consumers when it voted not to
consider a bill that would have preempted Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling
law — a decision that honored Justice Louis Brandeis’s 1932 observation that
“a single courageous state may . . . serve as a laboratory” of democracy. We at
Consumer Reports urge Massachusetts to meet the needs of its citizens by
requiring labels on genetically engineered food in the Commonwealth.

Michael Hansen is a senior scientist at Consumers Reports.


MIT scientist links autism to Monsanto’s Roundup and predicts HALF of U.S. children will be autistic by 2025

Evidence just keeps pilling up against the herbicide Roundup manufactured by Monsanto and they can not be denied much longer. Even California has jumped the wagon and has called for it to be labeled as cancer causing. We must be very vigilant to what we put in our bodies may that be through our food but also beauty products and others. More and more our food crops and fruit trees are being sprayed with this and other similar chemicals and our food supply is being poisoned. Keep your family safe, buy locally, visit your farmer's markets and if you can grow your own vegetables organically, do so. You will never regret investing in producing your own food supply.
MIT research scientist and author Stephanie Seneff has studied autism for almost a decade, and her recent presentation regarding rising autism rates included a dramatic and controversial prediction. Seneff believes that if current rates continue, by 2025 one out of every two children born in the United States will be diagnosed with autism —  and she links the rise with the increased use of Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate. Additionally, she notes that exposure to heavy metals (such as mercury and aluminum, found in vaccines) are also a likely factor, especially in conjunction with glyphosate. Heavy use of Roundup began in 1990 and has increased ever since. Autism has seen a similar rise in that time period.

Although there are numerous genetic and environmental factors that are believed to contribute to the development of autism, Seneff believes the use of Roundup is a crucial link (especially considering how many children with autism have biomarkers indicating excessive glyphosate in their bodies), and other concerned environmental and parent groups are agreeing with her. Glyphosate has been found in dramatically high levels in breast milk in the United States (up to 1000 times higher than what is allowed in drinking water in Europe), people in 18 different countries have been found to have glyphosate in their blood, and urine testing has also shown that glyphosate levels are 10 times higher in the U.S. than in Europe.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

#RevokeGlyphosate Action

Tune into for a LIVE interview regarding the glyphosate in even organic wine report.

Above You Tube Zen Honeycutt discusses Glyphosate and RoundUp chemical cocktail, "pesticide foods" and GMO-glyphosate foods with Dr. Giles Eric Seralini  Dr. Stephanie Senneff What Glyphosate is and how it is killing us.

Please continue to call the EPA to revoke the license of glyphosate at 703-308-8187and share with any farmers you know, the benefits of eco agriculture. Check


Widespread contamination of glyphosate in wine, including organic.
Conventional wines tested show to have 28X higher levels of herbicide glyphosate!


MAA article and report
This is not an attack on organic, organic is still the best option. We must fight for organic.
The only way to stop the contamination of organic is for farmers to stop using it.
Please call the EPA and ask for the cancellation of the license of glyphosate.

Action Alert!

After the conference call with Alexis Baden Mayer of OCA, we are asking all our members to please call YOUR Senators this coming week,  202-224-3121, every day if you can.
Ask them to please honor state laws and allow Vermont's GMO labeling law to stand, and to NOT pass any other bills pertaining to GMO labeling before Vermont's law goes into effect.  The fact is that any bill, the DARK Act or the Merkley bill, would allow for a 2 year delay in GMO labeling per federal regulations.  We cannot wait that long.

The Pro GMO lobbyists continue to try to work a deal to stop federal, mandatory, clear GMO labeling!

Please visit our websiteHealth Solutions Store and Donate if you can support our work!
Thank you!

Moms Across America

Monday, March 28, 2016


March 28, 2016 – 5:00 a.m.

GMO Legislation Could Fade as Companies Roll Out Labels
By Ellyn Ferguson, CQ Roll Call

The likelihood of action on a stalled Senate bill to block states from mandating the labeling of genetically modified food may be dimming now that leading food manufacturers have already started labeling to comply with Vermont's mandatory law due to take effect July 1.
Campbell’s Soup Co. and Mars are changing labeling nationwide on all their products with GMO [genetically modified organisms] ingredients to avoid violating the state of Vermont's requirements that has inadvertently become the national standard.  Even companies such as General Mills Inc., ConAgra Foods and the Kellogg Co. that back industry efforts in Congress to override state laws and create one national standard are jumping on board to avoid the $1,000 a day per product fine in Vermont, a state with 626,000 residents.
Story Photo
Mars Label on Peanut M&M's Candy  (CQ Roll Call)

​“We stand firmly with the coalition working on this issue in Washington. In order to comply with the VT law we had to label nationally because we have a national distribution system,” General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas told CQ Roll Call via email.
But Scott Faber, of the Environmental Working Group, which has pushed for mandatory labeling, said the companies' actions lessen the chances of voting for labeling legislation. “We’d rebel if Congress said that consumers now have to wait on hold or fumble through websites now that companies have actually changed their packages and the democracy still stands,” Faber said.
By the time the Senate returns from its recess on April 4, at least a dozen companies are expected to have announced similar steps. This could make pending Senate legislation on the issue moot or could prod hold-out lawmakers to cross the aisle to reach an agreement. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick J. Leahyboth support their state's law.
Campbell’s broke with the industry in January and backs a national mandatory labeling requirement. Mars was not part of the food industry’s Safe Affordable Food Coalition, which has lobbied for pre-emption of state mandatory labeling laws and a voluntary labeling process. Mars has started labeling its candy products and will include its food and drink brands. All the companies stressed in statements that GMO products are safe for human consumption, but cited the impending Vermont law.
Vermont's 2014 law applies to raw vegetables and fruits as well as processed foods such as crackers, cereals and soft drinks sold at retail in stores. There are eight categories of exemptions, including for foods prepared in restaurant and take-out meals.
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has led the fight against mandatory labeling and his position appears to have hardened as companies announced they would meet Vermont’s requirements.
On March 16, the Kansas Republican was unable to invoke cloture and limit debate on an amendment to block states from writing mandatory labeling laws and instead create a federal voluntary labeling process overseen by the Agriculture Department. The amendment was attached to an unrelated bill (S 764).
Roberts needed 60 votes for cloture, but got a 48-49 vote. McConnell changed his vote to have the right to bring the proposal back to the floor at a later date. Shortly after the vote, Roberts indicated that he was open to further talks with Democrats dissatisfied with his amendment language. Democrats were cool to the option of the Agriculture Department creating a mandatory labeling regime if companies had not sufficiently complied under voluntary disclosure after final regulations establish the labeling process.
“Democrats blocked this compromise solution and now we see the result: big companies are making labeling decisions, but they are also making decisions to reformulate their products and avoid biotech ingredients altogether,” Roberts said in a statement. “The unwillingness to compromise by Senate opponents to my bill is about to hit both farmers and consumers directly in the pocketbook,” he added.
Roberts predicted a ripple effect. Companies, he said, would replace GMO ingredients because the labeling stigmatizes them. That would dent sales for farmers who grow major crops from GMO seeds such as corn and soybeans.
Faber and Colin O’Neil, at the Environmental Working Group, disputed Roberts’ argument that consumers would pay higher food costs. O’Neil said Mars is incorporating the Vermont requirements into planned label changes to mark its 75th anniversary this year.
Now that companies have demonstrated that they can label food packages, Faber said, it's less likely that senators would vote for Roberts’ labeling legislation, which would allow companies to direct consumers to websites or toll-free numbers for information on GMO products.
“We remain hopeful Congress will craft a national solution so consumers have information and companies have certainty,” Faber said, adding that he planned to collect and feature GMO labels on his Twitter feed.
Roger Lowe, spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, argues that the companies' decisions strengthen the argument that Vermont’s law will encourage other states to adopt mandatory labeling with different requirements. That, he said, would drive up food companies’ business costs that would be passed along to consumers. Just two other states, Connecticut and Maine, have mandatory GMO labeling laws. However, those laws cannot take effect until four neighboring states enact similar laws.
“If everyone labels for Vermont and then another state passes its own law that has a different standard we’re back in the same mess again. There’s still an imperative for a national labeling standard and a federal law,” Lowe said.
Lowe said the grocery group does not think the companies’ decisions will lead the Senate to back mandatory labeling of GMO food products and beverages, which is supported by many Senate and House Democrats. A final bill must have Republican support in the House, which passed a voluntary labeling bill (HR 1599) with state pre-emption language in July 2015. 
Michael Hansen, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Consumers Union

Sunday, March 27, 2016


More to the Story?

More to the Story?
The world’s largest food corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it illegally) to avoid being required to label the genetically engineered ingredients in their products.
But with the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont’s GMO labeling law on the horizon, a handful of the largest multinational food corporations have announced they will now label GMOs—not solely because they will be forced to, but because as General Mills claims, they believe “you should know what’s in your food and how we make ours.”
Have consumers won the GMO labeling battle? Have these food companies that so fiercely fought to keep labels off their products really split with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that is still trying to overturn Vermont’s law in the courts, and preempt it in Congress?
Or is there something more to these recent announcements than just the need to comply with Vermont’s law? As in, a strategy to lull consumers into complacency, while at the same time forcing Congress to give food companies what they’ve wanted all along—a free pass on labeling?
Read the essay

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email the OCA

April Fools?

April Fools?
Last week, the Senate defeated S. 2609—or what we call the DARK Act, the bill that would Deny Americans our Right to Know about GMOs.
We hope you celebrated last week. Because this week, we have to get back to work. With a vengeance.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) didn’t have thevotes on March 16 to pass a bill to preempt Vermont’s labeling law. But that doesn’t mean we’ve seen the last of Roberts, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Here’s why. After the vote on the DARK Act failed last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) flipped his vote from yes to no. It’s not that McConnell had a sudden change of heart. Hardly. He just used a procedural maneuver in order to allow the Senate to bring back an amended version of the DARK Act for another vote.
So what’s next? When Congress returns on April 4, after a two-week recess, we expect the pro-GMO, Monsanto-funded Democrats in the Senate, led by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), to keep working on a compromise bill. Stabenow has said all along that she wants a federal labeling bill that preempts Vermont. Can she come up with a compromise bill that accomplishes preemption, but is acceptable enough to win over a few more Senators? Enough to get the bill passed in the Senate? And turn consumers into April Fools?
TAKE ACTION: Call Sen. Debbie Stabenow and ask her to protect Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law
Dial 888-897-0174 to tell your Senators to vote against any compromise that would block or delay Vermont's bill from taking effect.
Help or organize an April Fool’s Day action at the home office of your Senator. Email campaigns (at) if you can help!