http://bit.ly/4wYFxN Huffpost
- MAKES YOU THINK ABOUT GMO, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, AND HFC, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP and all the products...the thousands and thousands of products made with GMO corn (almost anything in a package or bottle).
Saturday, January 16, 2010
GMO CORN LINKED TO ORGAN FAILURE
http://bit.ly/4wYFxN Huffpost
- MAKES YOU THINK ABOUT GMO, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, AND HFC, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP and all the products...the thousands and thousands of products made with GMO corn (almost anything in a package or bottle).
WATCH THIS CASE!!!! GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT
Breaking News: Monsanto Takes Center for Food Safety Legal Victory to Highest Court
(January 15, 2010) Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
“This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between public interest non-profits and a corporation bent on nothing less than domination of our food system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”
The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency’s re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.
In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.
“Although we believe a further hearing is unnecessary, we are confident we will again prevail, as the lower courts have already three times determined,” continued Kimbrell. “We hope that this grand stage will further inform the public, policymakers and the media about the significant risks of genetically engineered crops and the vital need to protect farmers and the environment.”
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.
“We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops,” said Phil Geertson, an alfalfa farmer based in Idaho.
Related:
A 2009 study showed that the use of genetically modified crops, the vast majority Monsanto’s “roundup ready” crops, has caused over the last 13 years a dramatic increase in herbicide use, by 383 million pounds, and concomitant harms to the environment and human health.
The U.S. Department of Justice has undertaken an investigation of Monsanto regarding violations of anti-trust and monopoly laws and is set to hold public hearings in spring 2010.
Another 2009 study showed that, despite decades of promises and hype, GE crops do not increase yields.
-The Center For Food Safety, The True Food Network
(January 15, 2010) Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
“This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between public interest non-profits and a corporation bent on nothing less than domination of our food system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”
The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency’s re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.
In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.
“Although we believe a further hearing is unnecessary, we are confident we will again prevail, as the lower courts have already three times determined,” continued Kimbrell. “We hope that this grand stage will further inform the public, policymakers and the media about the significant risks of genetically engineered crops and the vital need to protect farmers and the environment.”
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.
“We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops,” said Phil Geertson, an alfalfa farmer based in Idaho.
Related:
A 2009 study showed that the use of genetically modified crops, the vast majority Monsanto’s “roundup ready” crops, has caused over the last 13 years a dramatic increase in herbicide use, by 383 million pounds, and concomitant harms to the environment and human health.
The U.S. Department of Justice has undertaken an investigation of Monsanto regarding violations of anti-trust and monopoly laws and is set to hold public hearings in spring 2010.
Another 2009 study showed that, despite decades of promises and hype, GE crops do not increase yields.
-The Center For Food Safety, The True Food Network
Sunday, January 3, 2010
TAKE ACTION: SCHOOL FOODS WORSE THAN FAST FOOD!!!
Protect Children from the USDA’s Unsafe School Lunches
Targeting: Tom Vilsack (Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Sponsored by: CREDO Action
Know what's less safe for our nation's children than fast-food? Their school lunch!
It's hard to believe, but hamburgers from McDonald's and Jack in the Box are safer than the meat that America's 31 million children are offered at our nation's schools.
Each year the USDA buys some 100 million pounds of beef for America's school lunch program -- but the USDA refuses to adopt common-sense practices to ensure that meat served to our children is safe.
A recent investigation by USA Today found that the meat sold to U.S. school cafeterias faces less testing and lower safety standards than the meat that's served in most fast-food restaurants -- outlets that aren't otherwise known for their health consciousness and are as cost-conscious as the most passionate deficit hawk.
That's right: McDonalds, KFC, and Jack in the Box test the ground beef they buy five to 10 times more frequently than the USDA tests beef for U.S. school lunches! And these restaurants have for years refused to buy certain kinds of lower-quality meat and chicken which the USDA continues to accept.
Despite assurances of safety from Rayne Pegg, head of the Agricultural Marketing Services, the USDA agency responsible for school lunch meat purchases, scientists and experts agree that there is no excuse for the USDA's lax standards. Even the USDA used to agree! As far back as 2000, the USDA Secretary under Bill Clinton vowed to rectify this unacceptable policy. Then the Bush administration took office and Big Meat (AKA the meat industry) used its influence to kill any hope of reform. Until now.
Admirably, current Secretary Tom Vilsack has agreed to "an independent review" of USDA safety standards for school lunch meat. But that is not nearly enough. With tens of millions of pounds of contaminated meat recalled over the past two years, it's only a matter of time before these low standards lead to a school cafeteria outbreak and sickened children. The possibility is unacceptable.
http://www.change.org/actions/view/protect_children_from_the_usdas_unsafe_school_lunches
Tell Secretary Tom Vilsack that our children need immediate, emergency action to make sure that the food they eat each day is the safest possible!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
GMO BANS in DIFFERENT NATIONS
genetically-modified-food-tomatoes-syringes-photo.jpg
Photo credit: David Gould / Getty Images
GMO Bans, Laws, and Labels from Around the World
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 12. 3.09
Food & Health
Prince Charles has called them the "biggest environmental disaster of all time," while agriculture industrialists like Monsanto swear they're safe for human consumption and a boon for the environment. Genetically modified foods are nothing if not controversial, and that controversy spans the globe. From Ireland and the European Union to Africa and Japan, and all the way back to the U.S., various bans, laws, and labels can make GMOs difficult to keep up with. Here's a roundup of the world in GMOs.
Corn is one of the world's most modified crops.
Ireland Bans Growth of GMOs
Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and the country has also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs. The government's two coalition partners signed the agreement [pdf] that officially declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone." That's good news for no-GMO advocates in the United States, since it imports a good bit of Irish dairy; lots of casein for cheese production comes to the U.S. from Ireland.
Egypt Bans Import/Export of GMOs
In a move that has as many implications for world trade as it does for agriculture, Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs. That means that none can come in -- meaning they can't import from any countries growing GMO foods they want -- and none can leave -- meaning they can't grow any GMOs, either. This sets in motion a complex agripolitical dance involving many countries where agriculture is a big part of foreign trade.
For example, "A non-GMO policy would not cause difficulties for sunflower oil but it would for soyoil," according to one European trader. "It would mean that soyoil imports would only be possible from Brazil and not from the U.S. or Argentina." The countries are the world's three largest producers, so Egypt's decision cuts two out of that equation; it remains to be seen if the ban will leverage more GMO-free growth in other countries.
Japan Says No to GMO
Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods -- Australia, the U.S., and Canada, to name a few -- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. Most of the soy and corn -- two of the most frequently modified foods -- that enter Japan is carefully sourced explicitly as "non-GM," using expensive traceability schemes, but that doesn't cover all of their bases. Keisuke Amagasa, of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign, summed it up:
Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard.
France Defines GMO-free Labeling
Currently, there is no European regulation on what constitutes GMO-free, although products that contain more than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients must indicate GM content on their labels. That doesn't apply to animals, though, and their meat and dairy products don't require a distinction whether they were fed GMO foods or not.
In France, the Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies is attempting to clear things up, when it comes to the labeling used to identify GMOs; their recent recommendations are expected to become law in the second half of 2010. These recommendations include an upgrade to a threshold of 0.1 percent for genetically modified material in plant products and animal feed, and a minimum distance between apiaries and fields where GM crops are grown (though that distance was not specified). Labels could then designate plant products as 'GMO-free,' animal products as 'fed on GMO-free feed' or 'derived from animals fed without GM feed,' and honey as 'biotech-free.' Stay tuned for final results on this one.
GMO Sorghum has made inroads in Africa.
GMO Sorghum Comes to Africa
Despite the growing tide against GMOs, they're finding their way (legally) into the food systems in some places. In South Africa, the government gave permission to proceed with trials of genetically modified sorghum, with the blessing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and DuPont, among other supporters. The justification is that, while it is one of the few crops that grows well in arid regions, it lacks most essential nutrients and it has poor protein digestibility; modifying it allows more nutrients to be "put" back in. Opponents of the decision are concerned that the introduction of the GMO crop threatens one of Africa's most important heritage crops.
The U.S. Bans GMOs. In Missouri. In a National Wildlife Refuge
While the U.S. has engaged in a much-publicized holdout from widespread GMO bans, a few small events have started the GMO-free ball rolling. A federal judge issued a ruling in Missouri stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shouldn't have allowed genetically modified crops on a national wildlife refuge. That may not sound like much, but, thanks to the ruling, 37 farming contracts -- many being used for GMO soybean and corn crops -- have been canceled.
Will it lead to more widespread action? Whole Foods Market is on board with a GMO ban, having its store-brand products independently tested to certify that they contain zero GMO content -- who'll be next?
from: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/gmo-bans-laws-labels-around-the-world.php
rBGH Hormone Being OPPOSED for BEEF & DAIRY!
Groups Applaud American Public Health Association for Opposition to Hormone Use in Beef and Dairy Production
For Immediate Release: December 22 2009
Washington, D.C.—Public health and consumer groups today applauded the decision of the American Public Health Association (APHA) to oppose the use of growth hormones in beef and dairy production by calling for a ban on the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy cows and a slate of growth hormones in beef cattle.
APHA is the oldest and largest association of public health professionals in the world, representing 50,000 professionals nationwide. APHA’s resolution follows an official position statement released last year by the American Nurses Association opposing rBGH. The past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) last year asked all AMA members to serve only rBGH-free milk in hospitals.
Full text: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11815--american-public-health-association-opposes-gm-hormone
The APHA resolution can be viewed at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379
Contacts: David Wallinga, M.D., Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 612-423-9666
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2457
Rick North, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-968-1520
Martin Donohoe, M.D., Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-819-6979
For Immediate Release: December 22 2009
Washington, D.C.—Public health and consumer groups today applauded the decision of the American Public Health Association (APHA) to oppose the use of growth hormones in beef and dairy production by calling for a ban on the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy cows and a slate of growth hormones in beef cattle.
APHA is the oldest and largest association of public health professionals in the world, representing 50,000 professionals nationwide. APHA’s resolution follows an official position statement released last year by the American Nurses Association opposing rBGH. The past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) last year asked all AMA members to serve only rBGH-free milk in hospitals.
Full text: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11815--american-public-health-association-opposes-gm-hormone
The APHA resolution can be viewed at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1379
Contacts: David Wallinga, M.D., Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 612-423-9666
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2457
Rick North, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-968-1520
Martin Donohoe, M.D., Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 503-819-6979
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
URGENT ACTION BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2009!
US Working Group on the Food Crisis
What You Can Do to End Corporate Concentration in the Food System!
Urgent! Before December 31st, send a letter to the US Department of Justice telling them about your experience of corporate concentration in the food system! Visit our pages on sample letters and letter ideas to get started.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), will hold a series of public hearings around the country on anti-trust violations, i.e. corporate dominance, in food and agriculture, beginning in March. Numerous topics are being addressed, and they are encouraging members of the public to submit comments based on either personal experience, technical expertise, or even general concern about the dangers and problems of corporate dominance in the food system.
Resources for those writing submissions to the Department of Justice/USDA. To get involved, contact dave (at) maryknoll (dot) org.
http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/node/24
http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/
What You Can Do to End Corporate Concentration in the Food System!
Urgent! Before December 31st, send a letter to the US Department of Justice telling them about your experience of corporate concentration in the food system! Visit our pages on sample letters and letter ideas to get started.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), will hold a series of public hearings around the country on anti-trust violations, i.e. corporate dominance, in food and agriculture, beginning in March. Numerous topics are being addressed, and they are encouraging members of the public to submit comments based on either personal experience, technical expertise, or even general concern about the dangers and problems of corporate dominance in the food system.
Resources for those writing submissions to the Department of Justice/USDA. To get involved, contact dave (at) maryknoll (dot) org.
http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/node/24
http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/
MULTI-MILLION$$$ FROM LOBBYI$T$ TO POISON & GENETICALLY MODIFY PLANET
Published on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 by Gaea Times
Monsanto Awarded 'Angry Mermaid' Lobbying Prize
COPENHAGEN - Biotech giant Monsanto won a dubious honour Tuesday when an online poll awarded it the "Angry Mermaid" prize for what critics see as misleading lobbying on the issue of climate change.
The award was unveiled in Copenhagen, home to an iconic statue of Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale character the Little Mermaid, on the sidelines of United Nations talks on fighting global warming.
"Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions," the nomination ran.
In a web-based poll of 10,000 people, some 3,700 tipped Monsanto as the most aggressive and inappropriate lobbyist, ahead of oil giant Shell (1,800 votes) and the American Petroleum Institute (1,400 votes).
"Monsanto has attracted thousands of votes from individuals who are outraged that such an environmentally-damaging form of agriculture should be put forward to tackleclimate change," said organizer Paul de Clerk of environmental group Friends of the Earth.
"Big business must not be allowed to sabotage action against climate change by promoting their vested interests. All the candidates for the ‘Angry Mermaid' award have lobbied to protect their own profits and prevent effective action to tackle climate change," he said.
The award was set up by Friends of the Earth and five other groups to "highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting, often profitable, false solutions."
Hundreds of activists have descended on Copenhagen in recent days to push for a worldwide deal on fighting climate change and cracking down on pollution.
The event has spawned a number of ironic awards targeting groups seen as hostile to a deal.
As well as the Angry Mermaid, for example, environmentalists have created a "fossil of the day" prize to target the country or company which is seen as having done most to block progress.
© 2009 Gaea Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)