"NEVERSECONDS" MARTHA WINS SCHOOL FOOD FIGHT-SCOTLAND!

9-year-old’s lunch blog gets banned by politicians, then unbanned by internet outrage

By Jess Zimmerman
15 Jun 2012 9:56 AM

Remember Martha Payne, the Scottish 9-year-old whose blog documenting her pathetic school lunches shamed local pols into allowing kids unlimited fruits and vegetables? Well, they decided they weren’t going to be pushed around by a little girl anymore, and sent word that she was no longer allowed to take photographs of her food.
What they didn’t count on was being pushed around by a little girl and her legions of internet fans, including Jamie Oliver. So now the council is photographing its words, then eating them. Martha’s blog, Never Seconds, lives on.
On Thursday, Martha explained on her blog that she was no longer allowed to photograph her lunches, because her blog had been generating too much media coverage:

This morning in maths I got taken out of class by my head teacher and taken to her office. I was told that I could not take any more photos of my school dinners because of a headline in a newspaper today.
I only write my blog not newspapers and I am sad I am no longer allowed to take photos.

Her dad clarified that this was the work of the Argyll and Bute council, not the school. A statement from the council said that press attention had “led catering staff to fear for their jobs” — not lose them or anything, just fear for them. Sounds legit. By god, if someone feels an emotion, it’s time to QUASH FREE SPEECH.
But Martha’s blog was bigger than the council’s territory. She made changes on the home front — besides the “unlimited fruit and veg” thing, she reported a “special visitor at school who wears a white coat and hair net,” who checked what kids were eating and what they were throwing away. (I assume this was an effort to eliminate waste, but it could have been a spy from the council trying to prove that kids don’t need sufficient lunch. I wouldn’t put anything past these people.) But she also raised money for a charity called Mary’s Meals, which feeds needy kids internationally – in fact, rage-donations from pissed-off fans skyrocketed her fundraising to $35,000 (!!!) after the shutdown. And she collected photos of school lunches from around the world, some of which are pretty encouraging …

Photo by Lainey.

… and some of which are from America:

Photo by Miranda.

Those fans and others were outraged when the council tried to hide by banning Martha from taking photographs. Twitter exploded, including a bazillion retweets of this message of support from Jamie Oliver:

Jamie Oliver

• ✔

@jamieoliver

Stay strong Martha, RT this to show your support #neverseconds bit.ly/LXzJcI Jx

15 Jun 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

Wired’s story on the shutdown also included contact info for the Argyll and Bute council, so even politicians too senile to use Twitter undoubtedly got an earful. (And I’m not saying the Argyll and Bute council is dumb, but its criticism of this blog by a single small child documenting what she herself ate for lunch was that “the photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils.” No way, really?)
Result: The council has realized that it should maybe quit bullying a little kid out in public. One of the council leaders announced, “There’s no place for censorship in Argyll and Bute Council and there never has been and there never will be [except for a little while yesterday before Jamie Oliver stuck his nose in].” Martha gets to take all the pictures she wants.
Blog on, Martha. The internet has your back.

Martha learns cooking from celebrity chef Nick Nairn. (Photo courtesy of Never Seconds.)

Source

• Victory for Martha Payne as Argyll and Bute council backs down on school dinner blog ban, Telegraph
• 9-Year-Old Who Changed School Lunches Silenced By Politicians, Wired

Jess Zimmerman is the editor of Grist List.

SOURCE:  http://grist.org/list/nine-year-olds-lunch-blog-gets-banned-by-politicians-unbanned-internet-outrag/  

GMO SAFETY STUDIES - PROFITIZED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

By ANDREW POLLACK

Published: February 19, 2009

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

Enlarge This Image

Craig Lassig for The New York Times

Insect-resistant corn varieties are bred to repel rootworms.

Enlarge This Image

Craig Lassig for The New York Times

Ken Ostlie, an entomologist, said Syngenta had withdrawn its permission and a study about corn and rootworms had to stop.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

The statement will probably give support to critics of biotech crops, like environmental groups, who have long complained that the crops have not been studied thoroughly enough and could have unintended health and environmental consequences.

The researchers, 26 corn-insect specialists, withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies. But several of them agreed in interviews to have their names used.

The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.

So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building.

“If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,” said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement.

What is striking is that the scientists issuing the protest, who are mainly from land-grant universities with big agricultural programs, say they are not opposed to the technology. Rather, they say, the industry’s chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being “unduly limited.”

The companies “have the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to E.P.A.,” said Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell.

William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research for DuPont, which owns the big seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred, defended his company’s policies. He said that because genetically engineered crops were regulated by the government, companies must carefully police how they are grown.

“We have to protect our relationship with governmental agencies by having very strict control measures on that technology,” he said.

But he added that he would welcome a chance to talk to the scientists about their concerns.

Monsanto and Syngenta, two other biotech seed companies, said Thursday that they supported university research. But as did Pioneer, they said their contracts with seed buyers were meant to protect their intellectual property and meet their regulatory obligations.

But an E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said Thursday that the government required only management of the crops’ insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies.

The growers’ agreement from Syngenta not only prohibits research in general but specifically says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta’s product with any rival crop.

Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had permission from three companies in 2007 to compare how well their insect-resistant corn varieties fared against the rootworms found in his state. But in 2008, Syngenta, one of the three companies, withdrew its permission and the study had to stop.

“The company just decided it was not in its best interest to let it continue,” Dr. Ostlie said.

Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an agreement with the companies responsible, Monsanto and Syngenta, over publishing and intellectual property rights.

Chris DiFonzo, an entomologist at Michigan State University, said that when she conducted surveys of insects, she avoided fields with transgenic crops because her presence would put the farmer in violation of the grower’s agreement.

An E.P.A. scientific advisory panel plans to hold two meetings next week. One will consider a request from Pioneer Hi-Bred for a new method that would reduce how much of a farmer’s field must be set aside as a refuge aimed at preventing insects from becoming resistant to its insect-resistant corn.

The other meeting will look more broadly at insect-resistant biotech crops.

Christian Krupke, an assistant professor at Purdue, said that because outside scientists could not study Pioneer’s strategy, “I don’t think the potential drawbacks have been critically evaluated by as many people as they should have been.”

Dr. Krupke is chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, but he would not say whether he had signed it.

Dr. Niebur of Pioneer said the company had collaborated in preparing its data with universities in Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska, the states most affected by the particular pest.

Dr. Shields of Cornell said financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the big seed companies.

“People are afraid of being blacklisted,” he said. “If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can’t do your job.” 

Source:   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

IF FRANKENFOOD IS SAFE, WHY THE OVER $100M AD CAMPAIGN TO FIGHT LABELING GMO?

Vanguard state: California might just lead the way on GMO labeling

By Tom Laskawy

Europeans have been doing it since 1997. The Chinese saw fit to do it in 2004. And over a billion Indians will start doing it this January. Meanwhile about 95 percent of Americans want to do it at any given time — but can’t. And, as with many past liberation movements, the Americans who get to do it first may very well be in California.

Of course, I’m talking about labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs). This is a timely topic because a GMO labeling proposition called “The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” has officially qualified for the November ballot in California. While it’s true that the California legislature has killed several earlier attempts to pass a GMO labeling law (as also happened in Washington, Connecticut, and Vermont), this version will be put directly in front of voters. And as Richard Schiffman, writing for the U.K. Guardian, observes, that matters. His post reads:

What makes the referendum in California different is that, for the first time, voters and not politicians will be the ones to decide. And this has the food industry worried. Understandably so, since only one in four Americans is convinced that GMOs are “basically safe,” according to a survey conducted by the Mellman Group, and a big majority wants food containing GMOs to be labeled.

This is one of the few issues in America today that enjoys broad bipartisan support: 89 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats want genetically altered foods to be labeled, as they already are in 40 European nations, as well as Brazil and China.

Of course, when Big Food gets nervous, it opens up its collective wallet. And that’s exactly what’s expected in California. Schiffman points to a blog post by referendum organizing group California Right to Know that estimates food companies and their allies will spend upwards of $100 million trying to defeat the ballot initiative. The battle has also already been joined with two carefully named, industry-backed “astroturf” groups leading the charge, the Coalition Opposed to the Costly Food Labeling Proposition and California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Much of the reporting on the issue has focused on the consumer “right to know” aspect of the law — after all, it’s built into the name of the bill itself. Indeed, when the debate over GMOs is covered by the media, it’s often from the perspective of a scientific “consensus” that GMOs are safe while consumers are needlessly concerned. It’s an easy stance to take as long as you ignore the paucity of independent research on these foods and the limits biotech companies put on researchers who want access to their seeds.

Some coverage — like this piece on Slate — claims the so-called death of the “Frankenfood” debate and puts a spotlight on Europe. However, the recent E.U. decision rejecting a French ban on a particular strain of GMO corn that prompted the post is in fact a decision upholding a French court’s ruling on the ban from over a year ago. And the second grand development cited is the failure of an ill-considered anti-GMO activists’ plan to destroy an experimental GMO wheat plot in the U.K. To my mind, these don’t exactly add up to a pro-GMO movement.

If there’s a cooling in Europe on GMO issues, it’s likely because European consumers have for years now had the ability to easily identify foods with genetically modified ingredients. Because they’re labeled!

I was more distressed to see Slate repeat various pro-biotech myths — such as the idea that an adoption of GMO crops has led to a reduction in pesticide use — and cite out-of-date studies like this one by biotech industry consultants to back up the claim.

These anti-anti-Frankenfood analyses also tend to downplay the risks of GMOs to other farmers. But in California, that argument matters. Organic agriculture is big business in the Golden State — it’s got the most certified organic acreage in the entire country with sales worth well over $1 billion annually. Organic growers cannot by law use genetically modified ingredients — the presence of GM residue above a certain level will cause farms to lose their organic certification — but not all consumers are aware of that fact.

Since most processed conventional foods contain ingredients derived from GMO corn or soy, a labeling requirement would make the contrast between conventional and organic products all the more noticeable. So when consumers start avoiding the “contains GMOs” label, organic sales are very likely to go up.

And the labeling law will help farmers in other ways. It may, for example, help California’s agricultural exports, since many of our large exports partners either require labeling of GMOs or won’t buy them at all.

Labeling might even indirectly reduce the risk of contamination of other crops by GMO cross-pollination — a phenomenon that has been seen in everything from GMO canola to corn to alfalfa. Organic crops become worthless once genetically contaminated. Labels could force Big Ag to face the fact that it’s making something millions of Americans just don’t want. And that may cause farmers to plant fewer acres of GMO crops — thereby lessening the risk to their organic neighbors.

In short, while the food industry wants Californians to think GMO labeling will have a major negative economic effect through “frivolous lawsuits” and “increased food prices,” the effort seems more likely to do the opposite, by improving the economics of one of the state’s most important industries.

If there is real worry in the hearts of Big Food executives, it’s because they know that what happens in California rarely stays in California. Yes, this initiative may cause a wave of GMO labeling laws and referenda to ripple across the country.

But it may be even simpler. The packaging that food companies use in California — by far the most populous state in the country and thus the largest market — will likely be the packaging they’ll use elsewhere. So labeling for California might, just like that, turn into labeling for the rest of us. All in all, it’s a pretty neat trick.

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter.

Source:  http://grist.org/food/vanguard-state-california-might-just-lead-the-way-on-gmo-labeling/

FOOD FOR ALL - GENERAL INFO CHECKLIST

FOOD AFFAIRS

The Idiot Cycle: This documentary film follows the world's largest chemical producers: Dow Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Astrazeneca and Monsanto and how these chemical companies, who manufacture and emit cancer causing chemical substances, also develop, produce and invest in cancer treatments, the most profitable disease on the planet. http://www.japanesepopsongs.com/idiotcycle/play_trailer.htmlwatch the trailer

Meat Glue: Move over Pink Slime - the meat industry has a new favorite go-to substance they want to secretly throw onto the plates of Americans. What is it - and how are corporate front groups trying to hide its use from the American public? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BWkRPY1Q7M&feature=youtu.beWatch video

Gutless Legislators: Diana Reeves was furious when her state legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue the state of Connecticut if it passed a GMO labeling law. Lawmakers effectively told Connecticut's voters, who had clearly expressed overwhelming support for GMO labeling, "oh well." Unlike her gutless state legislators who rolled over, Reeves is determined to keep the fight for transparency in GMO ingredients alive. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25635.cfm .

California Right to Know Wins 1st Battle: The Secretary of State announced that the California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act qualified to be on the November 6 ballot. We've done it, folks! Against all odds we got on the ballot and now, against all odds, we are going to win in November. Why? Because over 90% of us want our foods labeled. http://www.labelgmos.org/we_made_it_on_the_ballothttp://www.labelgmos.org/we_made_it_on_the_ballot.

Hawaii Under Assault: For over 20 years, Hawai'i has been the global center for the open-field testing of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's), including pharmaceutical crops. Over 5,000 experimental tests have been conducted by Monsanto, Dow, Dupont/Pioneer, Syngenta and BASF that spray chemicals on an almost daily basis on our most valuable lands. They are supported by tax-breaks, and beneficial relationships with landowners, regulators and politicians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZgrOFjhzdg&feature=youtu.be

The Fluoride Racket: In this video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Fluoride Deception. “Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride’s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people." Watch the video.http://www.turtleshellhealth.com/2012/06/fluoride-deception-dangers-health-hazards-video/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ice+Cream+Summer+%2B+Island+Market+%2B+The+...&utm_source=YMLP&utm_term=Fluoridation+Racket

Enjoy Your Agent Orange Corn: 2,4-D was half the formula of Agent Orange, the infamous defoliant used in the Vietnam War that killed thousands of Vietnamese civilians and American soldiers, and remains a source of birth defects and cancer these many years later. 2,4-D remains in use on U.S. farms today. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the herbicide. The group cited various studies showing that exposure to 2,4-D could cause cancer, hormone disruption, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity. Take action.

Join Michael Pollan and Organic Leaders: In frustration over the 2012 Farm Bill, Organic Consumers Association director Ronnie Cummins has joined more than 70 of the nation's food and health leaders to send an open letter to Members of Congress this week, criticizing the bill's plan to give billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to corporate mega-farms while slashing food stamps and neglecting healthy food programs. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24750.cfm.

FDA Checks Dictionary on Corn Syrup vs Sugar: U.S. food and beverage makers who add high-fructose corn syrup to soda, breakfast cereal and other items will not be able to label it "corn sugar," under a decision by federal officials that frustrated corn processors but won praise from the sugar industry and some health advocates. Both sides say they have consumers' interests at heart and are trying to minimize confusion about the term "sugar." The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which decides what goes on food labels, has ruled against the corn groups. The agency said calling high-fructose corn syrup "sugar" would mislead people - and could harm them. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25416.cfm

Brian Halweil TALKS! Brian Halweil, publisher of "Edible Manhattan," discusses the problems with the global food system and the solutions he's found cropping up everywhere Watch the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4goR5cKaE&feature=youtu.be.

Starving Cancer: William Li presents a new way to think about treating cancer and other diseases: anti-angiogenesis, preventing the growth of blood vessels that feed a tumor. The crucial first (and best) step: Eating cancer-fighting foods that cut off the supply lines and beat cancer at its own game. http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

Farmers' Markets & Disease Prevention: An update from Dr. William Li, President of the Angiogenesis Foundation. Since his February 2010 TED Talk about fighting cancer by eating healthy, Dr. Li has been studying exactly which foods help most. http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

Cut Poison Burn: is a controversial, eye opening, and sometimes heartbreaking documentary that puts the business of cancer treatment under the microscope. Follow the frustrating journeys of critically ill cancer patients as they try to navigate the confusing and dangerous maze of treatment and encounter formidable obstacles in the “cancer industrial complex.” A compelling critique of the influence of medical monopolies, the power of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, Cut Poison Burn is essential viewing for anyone and everyone touched by cancer. Watch the trailer.http://cutpoisonburn.com/

The Dirty Dozen: The Shopper's Guide to Pesticide in Produce will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce. The list includes Apples, Celery...see full list. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

CONNECTICUT & U.S. NATIONAL GMO CAMPAIGNS

Connecticut Campaigns

Current Legislation

Key Bills in Connecticut See Congressional Bills Food, Farming & Organics Bill Name Position HB 5868 - AN ACT REQUIRING THE LABELING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD HB 5117 - AN ACT CONCERNING GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED FOODS State Legislative Bill Search Note, these links take you to content off our site. House Bill Search   Senate Bill Search    Connecticut Millions Against Monsanto Chapters Chapters are organized by Congressional District and listed by number. If you don't know which district you're in, click here. District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Additional Facebook Chapters Millions Against Monsanto Connecticut Green Product Search Connecticut Green and Organic Businesses within   of Zip code: Search:   Add a Green Business Click here to submit and see upcoming events! Latest Connecticut News 06/13/12 - Mom-Turned-Activist Launches National Movement to Boycott GMOs 06/07/12 - At Last, Connecticut Takes the Plunge and Partially Legalizes Medical Marijuana 05/09/12 - Fairfield: Food Bill Loses its Bite 05/07/12 - GMO 'Right to Know' Campaign in Connecticut Fails - Monsanto Lawsuit Threatened 05/05/12 - Connecticut Lawmakers Urge Labels for Genetically Modified Food 04/15/12 - Organic Farmers Hope for Boost with Rivals' Products Labeled as GMO 04/11/12 - Fairfield, CT Mom Spearheads Legal "Food Fight" 03/23/12 - Labels for Altered Foods Win Backing in Connecticut 03/07/12 - Update - Connecticut Legislation for Our Right to Know About GMOs 03/02/12 - Connecticut Legislators Push for GMO Labeling Law 02/23/12 - Support GMO Labeling in Connecticut: Tell Your State Rep to Support HB 5117! 01/02/12 - Label GMOs in Connecticut! 11/10/11 - CT NOFA's Work to Protect Farmers and Consumers from the Threats of GMOs 10/19/11 - CT NOFA Announces Representative Richard Roy as Guest Speaker at the 2011 Annual Meeting 10/17/11 - Suing Monsanto: Intellectual Property, Genetic Contamination,and Farmers' Rights 07/01/11 - Rep Roy Attends GMO Conference   National Campaigns Join Your Local Millions Against Monsanto Chapter to Get Involved in World Food Day Events for 2012! On World Food Day 2011, hundreds of anti-GMO events were held all over the country in an attempt to bring 1,000,000 people into the Millions Against Monsanto campaign for labels on genetically engineered foods. This was a great success, and we want to do it again for World Food Day, October 16, 2012! Get involved by joining your local Millions Against Monsanto chapter.

WANNA BOYCOTT GMO's ALTOGETHER? THIS MOM DOES

Mom-Turned-Activist Launches National Movement to Boycott GMOs

• By Katherine Paul
  Organic Consumers Association, June 13, 2012
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Connecticut News page.

Diana Reeves was furious when her state legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue the state of Connecticut if it passed a GMO labeling law. Lawmakers effectively told Connecticut's voters, who had clearly expressed overwhelming support for GMO labeling, "oh well."

Unlike her gutless state legislators who rolled over, Reeves is determined to keep the fight for transparency in GMO ingredients alive - and she's taking her fight national. She's started a group called GMO Free USA which plans to pressure food manufacturers into revealing which of their products contain GMOs. The ultimate goal is to organize national boycotts of those companies that refuse to switch to non-GMO ingredients.

GMO Free USA is Reeves' first foray into activism. The mother of three was on the fast track at a major accounting firm when her son was diagnosed with cancer. She walked away from her job to take care of him.

"I never looked back," she said. Her son died before he turned five.

 "This is one of those things that act as a catalyst, that bring people together," Reeves said. "You learn to live with it, to try to make some good come of it, to find better ways to channel the grief."

Having lost one child to disease, and with two daughters who were also suffering from health problems, Reeves became increasingly interested in the relationship between food and health,  About 4 or 5 years ago, she began reading about the potential hazards of GMO. "I started sending emails to my friends, telling them to 'say no to GMOs," she said. "I was probably driving them all crazy."

Then a few months ago, a friend introduced her to NonGMO Hartford, which eventually led to her involvement with the Connecticut Right to Know group which was pushing for a state labeling law. She began distributing information, and campaigning for HB 5117, which included a provision for mandatory GMO labeling.

With overwhelming public support for the Connecticut GMO labeling law, Reeves and others were sure it would pass. But at the last minute, under threat of a lawsuit by Monsanto, the bill was eviscerated behind closed doors, and the labeling provision removed before it was voted on by the House.

"I was so angry that our legislators didn't do their job,  that they didn't stand up to the corporations - especially because the majority of voters wanted this law," Reeves said.

Just as she had channeled her grief, Reeves now channeled her anger. She decided that if the government wasn't going to do its job, she would go directly after the food manufacturers.

She started GMO Free USA. The group's first task is to attract a significant number of like-minded members (5,000+). Once they reach that critical mass, they'll identify one company per week, and members will bombard that company with emails. The emailers will express concern about the health risks of GMOs, ask the company if they are sourcing GMO ingredients, and express their intent to boycott their products unless the GMOs are removed.

"We're going to hit them from every angle," Reeves said. "It's going to be thousands of people speaking directly to food manufacturers."

In order to make their voices heard by companies with very high sales volume, Reeves said they will need to mobilize thousands of people to act independently. So they're trying to find a minimum of 5000 people who will commit to the campaign, before they begin emailing food manufacturers.

 "The more people who join this consumer email initiative, the more powerful the campaign will be," she said.

Anyone who wants to get involved in this national campaign can sign up on facebook http://www.facebook.com/groups/378850855494732/ or yahoo http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GMOFreeUSA/.
 

CRIMINAL CHARGES IN DEATHS LINKED TO Bt CORN COVER-UPS

ISIS Report 13/06/12 Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn  Corporation faces criminal charges for concealing own study in which cows died after eating its genetically modified corn Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications Biotech giant Syngenta has been criminally charged with denying knowledge that its genetically modified (GM) Bt corn kills livestock during a civil court case that ended in 2007 [1]. Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn variety expresses an insecticidal Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate herbicides. EU cultivation of Bt 176 was discontinued in 2007. Similar varieties however, including Bt 11 sweet corn are currently cultivated for human and animal consumption in the EU. The charges follow a long struggle for justice by a German farmer whose dairy cattle suffered mysterious illnesses and deaths after eating Bt 176. They were grown on his farm as part of authorised field tests during 1997 to 2002. By 2000, his cows were fed exclusively on Bt 176, and soon illnesses started to emerge. He was paid 40 000 euros by Syngenta as partial compensation for 5 dead cows, decreased milk yields, and vet costs (see [2] Cows ate GM Maize and Died, SiS 21). During a civil lawsuit brought against the company by the farmer however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was the cause, claiming no knowledge of harm. The case was dismissed and Gloeckner remained thousands of euros in debt.   Gloeckner continued to lose cows and many more had to be put down due to serious illnesses, compelling him to stop using GM feed from 2002. He approached the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta to conduct a full investigation. However, only one cow was ever analysed and the data are still unavailable to the public. Unsurprisingly, no causal relationship between the GM feed and deaths was determined; and there is still no explanation for the deaths.  But in 2009, the farmer learned of a feeding study allegedly commissioned by Syngenta in 1996 that resulted in four cows dying in two days. The trial was abruptly terminated. Now Gloeckner, along with a German group called Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and another farmer turned activist Urs Hans, have brought Syngenta to the criminal court to face charges of withholding knowledge of the US trial, which makes the company liable for the destruction of the farmer’s 65 cows. Syngenta is also charged with the deaths of cattle in the US trial and on Gloeckner’s farm, which should have been registered as “unexpected occurrences”. Most seriously, the German head of Syngenta Hans-Theo Jahmann, is charged for withholding knowledge of the US study from the judge and from Gloecker in the original civil court case. Gloecker’s cows not alone This is by no means the only account of mysterious deaths associated with Bt GM feed. In India where livestock are left to graze on post-harvest cotton, thousands of livestock deaths have been recorded in different villages across central India where Bt cotton is grown (see [3] Mass Deaths of Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30).  Shepherds’ own observations and post-mortem analysis carried out in the laboratory revealed abnormal liver, enlarged bile ducts and black patches in the intestine. The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhoea, and sometimes passed red urine. Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected. One shepherd reported getting diarrhoea from eating the meat of an affected sheep. The vets declared that the toxicity could be due to the Bt toxin but this could not be proven as results were confounded by additional pesticides used on the fields. The shepherds were however, advised against letting the sheep graze on any more Bt cotton plants. Philippine villagers living around Bt Maize fields have also suffered deaths and similar illnesses of fever, respiratory, intestinal and skin problem (see [4] GM ban long overdue, five deaths and dozens ill in the Philippines, SiS 29).  Five mortalities were reported in 2003 and subsequently, 38 individuals had their blood analysed and all were positive for antibodies specific to Cry1Ab, suggesting an immune reaction to the toxin. As is often the case, intimidation and denial by government officials meant that there were no further investigations into the matter. Cause of deaths unknown There is still no explanation provided by the authorities as to the cause of death of Gloeckner’s cows. The biotech industry claims that Bt toxins are quickly digested in the stomach and are only effective in insect target species. However, a recent study has found the toxin in the blood of over 80 % of women and their unborn children tested in Canada [5]. Because naturally existing Bt toxins from the soil bacterium have been used for a long time, long-term toxicology and health risk assessments on Bt proteins in GM crops were not done. However, there are important differences between the naturally produced toxins that can be washed off the crops, as opposed to genetically modified toxins that are part and parcel of the GM crop. Independent studies have shown that basing health assessments on flawed scientific assumptions is not only arrogant, but foolish. Scientific studies dating from the 1990s have identified Bt toxins as potent immunogens, with Cry1Ac inducing immune responses in mice similar to the cholera toxin [6]. Farm workers dealing with Bt cotton have consistently reported allergic responses requiring hospitalisation in some cases (see [7] More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30). Binding of Cry1Ac to the intestine of mice has been shown, with concomitant diarrhoea symptoms [8]. A meta-analysis of 3 month feeding studies in laboratory animals found that Bt maize led to changes in blood protein levels indicative of abnormal liver metabolism (see [9] GM Feed Toxic, Meta-Analysis Confirms, SiS 52).  A recent study finds Cry1Ab toxic to human kidney cells, causing cell death at low doses (see [10] Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, SiS52).