BOYCOTT THE BIG BOYS - THE VT GE FOOD LABELING SUPPORT GAMES BEGIN

The Great Boycott: Monsanto and the GMA

By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, May 14, 2104

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

Defying repeated threats of a lawsuit from Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), on May 8, Peter Shumlin, Governor of Vermont, signed a historic bill requiring food manufacturers to label genetically engineered (GE) foods, and to drop the practice of labeling GE foods as “natural” or “all natural.”

On May 9, true to its word, the GMA confirmed that it will sue Vermont in federal court to overturn H. 112.

Vermont is prepared to fight back. The state has already established a “food fight” legal defense fund. Legal analysts sayVermont will likely win.

Vermont isn’t the only state up against the multi-billion dollar lobbying group. The GMA, whose 300-plus members include Monsanto and Dow, Coca-Cola and General Mills, is pushing a bill in Congress that would preempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws.

It’s time for consumers in every state to band together to defeat the GMA’s full-on assault, not only on Vermont, not only on consumers’ right to know what’s in our food, but on states’ rights and on our basic freedoms to protect our health and our communities.

Here’s how we do it. We boycott every product, including the natural and organic brands, owned by members of the GMA. We flood their Facebook pages, tarnish their brand names. We pressure financial institutions, pension funds and mutual funds to divest from Monsanto and the other GMA companies.

Our motto for Monsanto and GMA products must become: Don’t buy them. Don’t sell them. Don’t grow them. And don’t let your financial institution, university, church, labor union or pension fund invest in them.

As soon as the GMA files a lawsuit against Vermont, the Organic Consumers Association, joined by a growing coalition of public interest groups, will launch a boycott and divestment campaign directed against all of the 300 GMA companies and their thousands of brand name products—including foods, beverages, seeds, home and garden supplies, pet food, herbicides and pesticides.

A new balance of power

Monsanto and the GMA have until now successfully blocked popular GMO labeling legislation in over 30 states. They’ve defeated, by a razor-thin margin, two high-profile ballot initiatives, in California (2012) and Washington (2013). And they’ve intimidated Connecticut and Maine into including trigger clauses in those states’ GMO labeling laws, successfully delaying their implementation.

Funding for this anti-consumer, anti-right-to-know lobbying and advertising effort topped $100 million in 2012-2014, including $12 million in illegally laundered donations to I-522, the Washington State GMO labeling ballot initiative of 2013. All of that money has come from the 300 chemical, seed, supermarket, grain, pharmaceutical and food corporations, including Monsanto and the other Gene Giants, who make up the GMA.

Until now the GMA colossus has ruled, not only in Washington D.C., but in all 50 states. But now that Vermont has passed a trigger-free GMO labeling law, and Oregon is poised to do the same in November, the balance of power has shifted.

Monsanto, the GMA and their allies are in panic mode. Because they know that when companies are forced to label or remove GMOs, and also are forced to drop the fraudulent practice of labeling GE-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural,” in one state, they will have to do it in every state. Just as they’ve been forced to do in Europe, where mandatory GMO labeling has been in effect since 1997.

GMA members and corporate agribusiness hate labeling, because it forces them to reveal all of the hazardous GMOs, chemicals and drug residues lurking in the billions of dollars of foods, beverages, seeds, grains and pesticides they sell. It’s no wonder that Monsanto and GMA’s bill in Congress--a bill they’ve named the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014—has been renamed the “DARK” (Denying Americans the right to know) Act.

Let the boycott begin

We absolutely must defeat the impending GMA lawsuit against Vermont. This will require us to raise money and provide legal help to the state.

Equally important, we need to intensify our mass education, grassroots lobbying and marketplace pressure so we can defeat Monsanto and the GMA Big Food/Chemical lobby in the court of public opinion, too. If you would like to donate to this effortclick here.

But there are other ways we can use our dollars to defeat the GMA. We can refuse to invest, even indirectly through retirement and mutual funds, in those companies. We can pressure institutional investors like Fidelity, Vanguard and State Street to dump their stock in these companies.

And we can boycott all of the 300 GMA companies and their more than 6,000 brand name products—including foods, beverages, seeds, home and garden supplies, pet food, herbicides, and pesticides.

Where to start? As part of this Great Boycott, pro-organic consumer groups will put a special emphasis on boycotting the “Traitor Brands,” those organic and so-called “natural” brands owned and marketed by GMA members.

Health-conscious and green-minded consumers often inadvertently support the GMA when they buy brands like Honest Tea, Kashi, Odwalla and others whose parent companies, all members of the GMA, have donated millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California (Prop 37) and Washington State (I-522). (Take the boycott pledge here.)

These Traitor Brands include, among others:

PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic
Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba
Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread
McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8959#sthash.rJNvUYvM.dpuf
PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic
Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba
Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread
McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8959#sthash.rJNvUYvM.dpuf
PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen

Why not just boycott the conventional GMA parent company brands?

Because those of us who support organics rarely buy products like Coca-Cola, Diet Pepsi, or Kellogg’s Genetically-Modified-Sugar-Coated Frosted Flakes, or a packet of Monsanto seeds or a spray bottle of Roundup or 2, 4-D. The only way to pressure Big Food and the Gene Giants is to get millions of conscious consumers to boycott the brands we actually buy.

Let’s be clear. Junk Food and beverage companies who are members of the GMA are gobbling up organic and “natural” brands because they recognize the huge profit potential in the fast-growing organic and natural markets. They want our business. If we stop buying their brands, they know there’s a good chance we’ll find alternative brands. And we might never look back.

Seven ways to fight back

There are about 50 popular organic and natural “Traitor Brands” (owned by GMA members). It’s easy for most of us to boycott those brands. But how do we boycott the entire 6,000-product inventory of GMA member-owned brands, especially those of us who don’t shop for those brands in supermarkets?

Here are seven ways to fight back against Monsanto and all the Corporate Bullies of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

(1) Stop buying all non-organic processed foods. Even if they are certified organic, don’t buy any Traitor Brand processed foods or beverages. Ninety percent of the foods Americans buy or consume are heavily processed, deliberately laced with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, contaminated with dyes, preservatives, pesticides, GMOs, and drug residues. If you want to be healthy, if you want to avoid cancer, heart attacks, or obesity, build your diet around whole foods, especially raw fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, (coconut oil, avocadoes, pastured meat, dairy, and eggs, nuts, and whole grains) and nuts.

(2) Patronize grocers, coops and community restaurants that serve organic, cooked-from-scratch, local food.
Many restaurants, especially chain restaurants (Chipotlé is a rare exception), sell many of the brands owned by GMA members.

(3) Cook at home with healthy organic ingredients.

(4) Buy only heirloom, open-pollinated, and/or organic seeds.

(5) Boycott all lawn and garden inputs (chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) unless they are “OMRI Approved,” which means they are allowed in organic production.

(6) Read the labels on everything you buy. If a GMA member company owns the product, don’t buy it. Given the greed and reckless disregard for public health and the environment typical of GMA corporations, chances are these products aren’t good for you and the environment anyway.

(7) Download the Buycott app for your smartphone and join OCA's new campaign, "Buy Organic Brands that Support Your Right to Know" so you can scan products before you buy them.

In this age of the Internet and social media, consumer boycotts, divestment campaigns and other forms of marketplace pressure are more powerful than ever. Please join and support the Organic Consumers Association’s “Great Boycott” of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association today. Let’s show Monsanto and the GMA we mean business.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director for the Organic Consumers Association.
Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_30039.cfm

NO SCIENTIFIC AND GOVERNMENTAL CONSENSUS ON GE FOOD SAFETY EXISTS

10/21/13

Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5]

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.

Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.

1. There is no consensus on GM food safety

Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns”. The review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained by conventional breeding were “performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants”.[6]

A separate review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are safe included studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant,[7] the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate[8] [9] [10] [11] and no consensus exists on the topic.

Rigorous studies investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve animal feeding studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Independent studies of this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] The concerns raised by these studies have not been followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the initial findings.

The lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research calls of the European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term health impacts of GM food consumption in the light of uncertainties raised by animal feeding studies.[18] [19] These official calls imply recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They call into question the claim that existing research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety closed.

2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health

It is often claimed that “trillions of GM meals” have been eaten in the US with no ill effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.

3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate

Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods,[20] [21] are false.

For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities. Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens.[22]

A report by the British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term effects of GM foods on human health and the environment, “many unanswered questions remain” and that “safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available”. The report called for more research, especially on potential impacts on human health and the environment.[23]

Moreover, the positions taken by other organizations have frequently been highly qualified, acknowledging data gaps and potential risks, as well as potential benefits, of GM technology. For example, a statement by the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health acknowledged “a small potential for adverse events … due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity” and recommended that the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US prior to market release of GM crops be made mandatory.[24] It should be noted that even a “small potential for adverse events” may turn out to be significant, given the widespread exposure of human and animal populations to GM crops.

A statement by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) affirming the safety of GM crops and opposing labelling[25] cannot be assumed to represent the view of AAAS members as a whole and was challenged in an open letter by a group of 21 scientists, including many long-standing members of the AAAS.[26] This episode underlined the lack of consensus among scientists about GMO safety.

4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety

An EU research project[27] has been cited internationally as providing evidence for GM crop and food safety. However, the report based on this project, “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research”, presents no data that could provide such evidence, from long-term feeding studies in animals.

Indeed, the project was not designed to test the safety of any single GM food, but to focus on “the development of safety assessment approaches”.[28] Only five published animal feeding studies are referenced in the SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food safety.[29] None of these studies tested a commercialised GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the subchronic period of 90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general. Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general.

5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety

A frequently cited claim published on an Internet website that several hundred studies “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”[30] is misleading. Examination of the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For example:
Many of the studies are not toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that can provide useful information about health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain;[31] [32] studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the composition or genetic makeup of the crop.
Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial number found toxic effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Concerns raised by these studies have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that the body of research shows a consensus over the safety of GM crops and foods is false and irresponsible.
Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal’s total lifespan and cannot detect long-term health effects.[39] [40]

We conclude that these studies, taken as a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet website as they do not “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”. Rather, some of the studies give serious cause for concern and should be followed up by more detailed investigations over an extended period of time.

6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops

Environmental risks posed by GM crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on non-target organisms and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

As with GM food safety, no scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental risks of GM crops. A review of environmental risk assessment approaches for GM crops identified shortcomings in the procedures used and found “no consensus” globally on the methodologies that should be applied, let alone on standardized testing procedures.[41]

Some reviews of the published data on Bt crops have found that they can have adverse effects on non-target and beneficial organisms[42] [43] [44] [45] – effects that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests,[46] and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China.[47] [48]

Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have proved equally controversial. Some reviews and individual studies have associated them with increased herbicide use,[49] [50] the rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds,[51] and adverse health effects in human and animal populations exposed to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of GM crops.[52] [53] [54]

As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The review authors concluded, “The strong effects of training and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated.”[55]

7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated over many years and implemented in 2003. The Cartagena Protocol is an international agreement ratified by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology. It embodies the Precautionary Principle in that it allows signatory states to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against threats of damage from GM crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientific certainty.[56]

Another international body, the UN's Codex Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for seven years to develop international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops, because of concerns about the risks they pose. These guidelines were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, of which over 160 nations are members, including major GM crop producers such as the United States.[57]

The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.

These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding.

Concerns about risks are well-founded, as has been demonstrated by studies on some GM crops and foods that have shown adverse effects on animal health and non-target organisms, indicated above. Many of these studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol and Codex. We support the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.

Conclusion

In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or inconclusive, confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.

Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO safety.

________________________________________


[1] In the US, the term “genetically engineered” is often used in place of “genetically modified”. We have used “genetically modified” because this is the terminology consistently used by many authorities internationally, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; the World Health Organization; Codex Alimentarius; European and Indian legislation; peer-reviewed studies by industry and independent scientists; and the international media. It is also consistent with the Cartagena Protocol’s term “living modified organism”.


[2] Frewin, G. (2013). The new “is GM food safe?” meme. Axis Mundi, 18 July. http://www.axismundionline.com/blog/the-new-is-gm-food-safe-meme/; Wikipedia (2013). Genetically modified food controversies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies


[3] Mark Lynas (2013). GMO pigs study – more junk science. Marklynas.org, 12 June. http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/


[4] Keith Kloor (2013). Greens on the run in debate over genetically modified food. Bloomberg, 7 January. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-07/green-activist-reverses-stance-on-genetically-modified-food.html


[5] White, M. (2013). The scientific debate about GM foods is over: They’re safe. Pacific Standard magazine, 24 Sept.http://www.psmag.com/health/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/


[6] Domingo, J. L. and J. G. Bordonaba (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int 37: 734–742.


[7] Snell, C., et al. (2012). Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(3–4): 1134-1148.


[8] Séralini, G. E., et al. (2011). Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe 23(10).


[9] Dona, A. and I. S. Arvanitoyannis (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49(2): 164–175.


[10] Domingo, J. L. and J. G. Bordonaba (2011). Ibid.


[11] Diels, J., et al. (2011). Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy 36: 197–203.


[12] Domingo, J. L. and J. G. Bordonaba (2011). Ibid..


[13] Diels, J., et al. (2011). Ibid.


[14] Dona, A. and I. S. Arvanitoyannis (2009). Ibid.


[15] Séralini, G. E., et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(11): 4221-4231.


[16] Séralini, G. E., et al. (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 461-468.


[17] Carman, J. A., et al. (2013). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8(1): 38–54.


[18] EU Food Policy (2012). Commission and EFSA agree need for two-year GMO feeding studies. 17 December.


[19] French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (2013). Programme National de Recherche: Risques environnementaux et sanitaires liés aux OGM (Risk’OGM). 12 July. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/APR__Risk_OGM_rel_pbch_pbj_rs2.pdf


[20] Wikipedia (2013). Genetically modified food controversies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies


[21] G. Masip (2013). Opinion: Don’t fear GM crops, Europe! The Scientist, May 28. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35578/title/Opinion--Don-t-Fear-GM-Crops--Europe-/


[22] Royal Society of Canada (2001). Elements of precaution: Recommendations for the regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology. January. http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf


[23] British Medical Association Board of Science and Education (2004). Genetically modified food and health: A second interim statement. March.http://bit.ly/19QAHSI


[24] American Medical Association House of Delegates (2012). Labeling of bioengineered foods. Council on Science and Public Health Report 2.http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf


[25] AAAS (2012). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. 20 October.http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf


[26] Hunt, P., et al. (2012). Yes: Food labels would let consumers make informed choices. Environmental Health News.http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods


[27] European Commission (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010).


[28] European Commission (2010): 128.


[29] European Commission (2010): 157.


[30] Tribe, D. (undated). 600+ published safety assessments. GMOPundit blog. gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html


[31] Brouk, M., et al. (2008). Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from a genetically modified event DAS-59122-7 or a nontransgenic, near isoline control. J Anim. Sci, (Sectional Meeting Abstracts) 86(e-Suppl. 3):89 Abstract 276.


[32] Calsamiglia, S., et al. (2007). Effects of corn silage derived from a genetically modified variety containing two transgenes on feed intake, milk production, and composition, and the absence of detectable transgenic deoxyribonucleic acid in milk in Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 90: 4718-4723.


[33] de Vendômois, J.S., et al. (2010). A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. ;5(7):706-26.


[34] Ewen, S.W.B. and A. Pusztai (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354.


[35] Fares, N.H., and A. K. El-Sayed (1998). Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 6:219-33.


[36] Kilic, A. and M. T. Akay (2008). A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 46(3): 1164–1170.


[37] Malatesta, M., et al. (2002). Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Structure and Function 27:173-180.


[38] Malatesta, M., et al. (2003). Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry 47:385-388


[39] Hammond, B., et al. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42(6): 1003-1014.


[40] Hammond, B. G., et al. (2006). Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44(7): 1092-1099.


[41] Hilbeck, A., et al. (2011). Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies. Environmental Sciences Europe 23(13).


[42] Hilbeck, A. and J. E. U. Schmidt (2006). Another view on Bt proteins – How specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesti Int 2(1): 1–50.


[43] Székács, A. and B. Darvas (2012). Comparative aspects of Cry toxin usage in insect control. Advanced Technologies for Managing Insect Pests. I. Ishaaya, S. R. Palli and A. R. Horowitz. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer: 195–230.


[44] Marvier, M., et al. (2007). A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316(5830): 1475-1477.


[45] Lang, A. and E. Vojtech (2006). The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Basic and Applied Ecology 7: 296–306.


[46] Gassmann, A. J., et al. (2011). Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by Western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22629.


[47] Zhao, J. H., et al. (2010). Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environ Monit Assess 173(1-4): 985-994.


[48] Lu, Y., et al. (2010). Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 328(5982): 1151-1154.


[49] Benbrook, C. (2012). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – The first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 24(24).


[50] Heinemann, J. A., et al. (2013). Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability: 1–18.


[51] Powles, S. B. (2008). Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: Lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci 64: 360–365.


[52] Székács, A. and B. Darvas (2012). Forty years with glyphosate. Herbicides - Properties, Synthesis and Control of Weeds. M. N. Hasaneen, InTech.


[53] Benedetti, D., et al. (2013). Genetic damage in soybean workers exposed to pesticides: evaluation with the comet and buccal micronucleus cytome assays. Mutat Res 752(1-2): 28-33.


[54] Lopez, S. L., et al. (2012). Pesticides used in South American GMO-based agriculture: A review of their effects on humans and animal models. Advances in Molecular Toxicology. J. C. Fishbein and J. M. Heilman. New York, Elsevier. 6: 41–75.


[55] Kvakkestad, V., et al. (2007). Scientistsʼ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values 16(1): 79–104.


[56] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/


[57] Codex Alimentarius (2009). Foods derived from modern biotechnology. 2d ed. World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf


Source: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

BIG FOOD SPENDING UBER-BUCKS TO KEEP US FROM WHAT 64 NATIONS HAVE

Look Who’s Spent $100,000,000 To Keep Americans Eating In The Dark

May 16, 2014          The Grocery Manufacturers Association(GMA) sounds friendly enough. The word “grocer” brings to mind wholesome mom-and-pop shops out to feed the community.

But the GMA is not an association of small-time corner stores. In reality the GMA represents the arguably sordid interests of its members – some of the biggest junk food and pesticide companies on the planet.

In the last three years, the GMA has spent more than $100 million advancing its agenda – stopping regulation of junk food, opposingeducation about healthy eating, and most fervently of all, fighting the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

With 93% of the American public wanting to see GMOs labeled, it takes a sustained and substantial effort to keep us in the dark. And all the more so when 64 other nations, including the entire European Union, have already mandated the labeling of GMOs, But the GMA is nothing if not committed. The goal? To protect the profits of the junk food companies and pesticide companies who make up its membership.  And to defeat the radical idea that people have a right to know what’s in the food they’re eating.

This explains why the GMA was horrified on May 8, when Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed the state of Vermont’s historic bill requiring food manufacturers to label food that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and to ban the practice of labeling foods containing GMOs as “natural”.

Vermont’s bill came on the heels of similar laws passed in 2013 in the states of Connecticut and Maine, but with a crucial difference. The Connecticut and Maine bills contain “trigger” clauses, which mean that the laws don’t take effect unless other neighboring states pass similar bills. Why did legislators in these states install these “trigger clauses”?  They were afraid that the GMA would ensnare their states in lawsuits that they simply did not have the resources to defend.

But now that the state of Vermont has boldly stepped forward without a trigger clause, how do you think the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) has responded?

On May 9, exactly one day after Governor Shumlin signed Vermont’s historic legislation, the GMA announced that it will sue the state of Vermont in federal court in an effort to overturn the labeling bill.
Vermont was not surprised. The state has established a “food fight” legal defense fund, and is accepting donations from other states. Many state Attorney Generals across the United States are backing Vermont’s efforts. Although some legal analysts believe Vermont will win, victory is far from certain. The biggest junk food companies in the world are fighting the labeling initiative through their front group, the GMA.

Elsewhere in the country, the battle continues. People in the state of Oregon who believe people should be allowed to know what’s in their food have been working towards a ballot initiative that would require GMOs to be labeled. The GMA’s response? First came efforts in the courts, backed by unknown donors (though it’s not hard to guess who they might have been), which argued about the wording of the initiative. But on May 8th, the very day the governor of Vermont signed that state’s GMO labeling bill, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the wording was fine. Now organizers have until July 3 to gather 87,213 valid signatures, and if they do, the issue will be placed before voters on the November ballot.

And who do you think will spend lavishly to try to stop them?

If you guessed the GMA, you’re right. In the last few years, the GMA and its members spent more than $60 million barely defeating GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California and Washington. They’re not about to roll over and let Oregon voters decide what they think is best for their state.

Here’s what the GMA finds perplexing.  There are currently 84 bills on GMO labeling in 29 states, as well as a labeling bill in Congress. It’s getting harder and harder to fight all of them.

So the GMA has come up with a preemptive bill that aims to deal a death blow to mandatory labeling of GMOs in the United States. Food manufacturers in the U.S. currently don’t have to label products that contain GMOs, and the bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, would keep it that way.

The big question, of course, is who exactly is funding the GMA’s massive effort to keep us in the dark about what we’re eating? The GMA’s major contributors include such bastions of healthy eating as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Smucker’s. Perhaps not surprisingly, despite the fact that it is not in the grocery business at all, Monsanto is also a member.

Realizing that the GMA is fighting health and consumer freedom at seemingly every turn, concerned organizations and strategists have started asking what can be done to peel away the organization’s funding base.

A look at the GMA’s major supporters reveals that many of them own a raft of brands that are regularly purchased by natural foods consumers.

Coca-Cola, one of the GMA’s top donors, turns out to be fueled not just by sales of Coke, but also by sales of Honest Tea, Zico Coconut Water, Simply Orange, Odwalla, and Powerade.

Fortunately for fans of the right to know what’s in our food, there’s a petition and boycott campaign underway, launched by the Food Revolution Network (for which I serve as CEO), and the Center for Food Safety. We chose Coca-Cola because it was one of the top donors to the GMA, and because we thought it might be uniquely vulnerable to the demands of natural foods consumers. According to Bloomberg News, Coca-Cola’s healthier brands are playing a major and increasing role in the company’s profitability. In recent years sales of Coke have been leveling off, but sales of Honest Tea, for example, have been exploding.

We are asking Coca-Cola to be accountable to the natural foods consumers from whom it profits, by ceasing to fund efforts aimed at derailing GMO labeling. More than 250,000 people have signed on so far. Want to help? Join the Coca-Cola brands boycott, and find out how you can get informed and take action, here.

What You Can Do

If you want to stand up to the GMA’s antics, and for your right to know what’s in your food, there are plenty of things you can do.

1) Join the Coke boycott team here.

2) Tell Smucker’s to stop blocking GMO labeling here.

3) Download the Buycott app for your smartphone and join Organic Consumer’s Associations new campaign, “Buy Organic Brands that Support Your Right to Know” so you can scan products before you buy them.

4) Support the “right to know” efforts in Oregon with funds or volunteer time here.

5) Tell the US Congress to oppose the federal bill that would block mandatory labeling efforts by signing the Center for Food Safety’s petitionhere.

6) Support Vermont’s epic struggle by making a contribution to the state’s legal defense fund, here.

7) Find out about California’s new legislation that has industry lobbyists freaking out – and if you’re in California, call your state Senator now. All the info is here.

Source:  http://foodrevolution.org/blog/gma-in-the-dark/

RUSSIA GETS SERIOUS ABOUT GE CROPS & FOOD

​GMO producers should be punished as terrorists, Russian MPs say

euters / Thierry Roge

Published time: May 15, 2014 12:47
Edited time: May 16, 2014 11:13A draft law submitted to the Russian parliament seeks to impose punishment up to criminal prosecution to producers of genetically-modified organisms harmful to health or the environment.

The draft legislation submitted on Wednesday amends Russia's law regulating GMOs and some other laws and provides for disciplinary action against individuals and firms, which produce or distribute harmful biotech products and government officials who fail to properly control them.

At worst, a criminal case may be launched against a company involved in introducing unsafe GMOs into Russia. Sponsors of the bill say that the punishment for such deeds should be comparable to the punishment allotted to terrorists, if the perpetrators act knowingly and hurt many people.

“When a terrorist act is committed, only several people are usually hurt. But GMOs may hurt dozens and hundreds. The consequences are much worse. And punishment should be proportionate to the crime,” co-author Kirill Cherkasov, member of the State Duma Agriculture Committee told RT.

Russian criminal code allows for a punishment starting with 15 years in jail and up to a life sentence for terrorism.

Less severe misdeeds related to GMOs would be punishable by fines. For instance the administrative code would provide for up to 20,000 rubles (US$560) in fines for failure to report an incident of environmental pollution, which would also cover harmful GMO contamination, if sponsors of the bill have their way.

Russia gave the green light to import of GMOs and planting of bioengineered seeds as part of its accession to the WTO, but the Russian government remains skeptical of GMOs. In April, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that his cabinet will postpone the beginning of certification of GMO plants for growth in Russia due to lack of proper infrastructure needed to test their safety.

The government also opposes imports of GMO food, saying the country has enough farmlands to provide enough regular food to feed itself.

But the new draft legislation, even if adopted, would be difficult to enforce in practice. Proving a direct link between certain GMOs and health or environmental problems could be difficult, considering that harmful effects, if they manifest, may take years to become apparent.

Critics of the draft bill also point out that it fails to suggest amendments to laws regulating textile production and pharmaceutical industry, both of which have been using genetically-altered products for years.

“The global pharmaceutical industry uses GMOs much wider than food industry does. And there is the question, who should be punished in this case – producers of medicines which are used to treat people, or those who want to ban them,”commented Aleksandr Korbut, vice-president of the Russian grain union, to Izvestia newspaper.

Source:  http://rt.com/news/159188-russia-gmo-terrorist-bill/

GE CHEMICALS' DEADLY TOLL ON ARGENTINA

Are pesticides linked to health problems in Argentina?
By Linda PresslyBBC World Service, Assignment
13 May 2014 Last updated at 20:21 ET

Viviana Perez and her daughter Nadia

Continue reading the main story

Could pesticides - their use and abuse - increase levels of cancer and birth defects? It is a question asked across the vast belt of Argentina where GM crops are grown. In Chaco, the Minister of Public Health wants an independent commission to investigate a growing health crisis.

On a hot, still day the buzz of a distant, small plane is just audible.

"They fumigate all around with airplanes", says Carlos Fria who is out shopping for fruit and vegetables in Avia Terai. This small rural community sits, slap bang in the middle of Chaco - the flat, sprawling, northern province that nudges the border with Paraguay.

Carlos lives near Avia Terai, and says agrochemicals are sprayed close to his home, contravening local laws.

"If the wind changes the agrochemicals come into the house. My uncle just died
of cancer. My wife too passed away from cancer. Now many, many people are dying of cancer - it didn't used to be like that," he says.

Cancer is becoming more common everywhere. Could Carlos's experience just be part of life in the modern world? He doesn't think so.

"In my opinion, this has to do with the poison they put on the fields."

Chaco was once famous for its cotton. Beef cattle dotted the endless plains. Now soya dominates the landscape. Argentina has become one of the world's largest producers of GM soya, with some 20 million hectares under cultivation. It is the nation's leading export.

The biotechnology revolution in agriculture began to transform Argentina in the mid-1990s. And it is the agrochemicals that support the crops that worry people.

Carlos Fria lives in Avia Terai: "If the wind changes, the agrochemicals come into the house"

In local research published in 2012, of those surveyed in Avia Terai, nearly a third said someone in the family had cancer in the last 10 years. In comparison, in one of Chaco's ranching communities, just 3% of those asked said they had a relative with cancer.

One of the report's authors was Dr Maria del Carmen Seveso, who was in charge of intensive care in a hospital in the nearby town of Presidencia Roque Saenz Pena, before she retired. She says it reflects her own experience of an increase in patients with aggressive tumours. About a decade ago she noticed something else too - a rise in the number of pregnant women with eclampsia, a life-threatening condition.

"We saw 20 cases in five years. Then in 2006, we had 20 women just in that one year. In 2007 the number rose again - this was the year they fumigated the land with agrochemicals most intensively, and planted the most soya beans here. Then the doctor in charge of neo-natal services at the hospital gave me some data. It showed that around 3.5% of babies born at the hospital had birth defects - he said the more usual figure would be around 1%."

Dr Raul Horacio Lucero, head of molecular biology at the National University of the North East in Chaco, also collected data about disabled infants who began to be referred to him in the 1990s.

"I'm talking about all kinds of disability - some had missing limbs, others had aberrations of their sex organs," he says.

Dr Raul Horacio Lucero has charted birth defects among infants in Chaco

"I didn't see any alteration at a chromosomal level, so then I began questioning the mothers. What they all had in common was they had been exposed to agrochemicals."

But none of these observations amount to scientific proof.

Seveso's report, based on questionnaires and anecdotal evidence from local people like Carlos, is a long way from establishing a causal relationship between agrochemicals and cancer. And it isn't clear which pesticides women were exposed to.

There could be other possible reasons for the apparent rise in cases of eclampsia and birth deformities - perhaps more women with problematic pregnancies were being seen at the hospitals, or more sick babies were surviving. Health problems could also be explained, it's been suggested by scientists, by household chemicals, arsenic in the water, or heavy metals in the soil. No one knows.

Meanwhile, producers of agrochemicals say they are scientifically proven not to be carcinogenic, or to adversely affect reproduction or development.

But this has not halted the debate in Argentina.

The most commonly used herbicide in the country is glyphosate. It is the world's top-selling weed killer, and was developed in the 1970s by the multinational giant, Monsanto. Now it is produced by many companies, and approved as safe by regulatory agencies around the world, including in the US and Europe.

GM soya is resistant to glyphosate, so when it is applied to crops, it kills only the weeds and not the soya plants.

One of Argentina's most eminent scientists, Dr Andres Carrasco, from the University of Buenos Aires, exposed chicken and frog embryos to Monsanto's commercial formulation of glyphosate, called Roundup.

"We diluted the formulation 5,000 times, and some of the embryos died and some of them became malformed. I decided to inject pure glyphosate into embryos and we got the same result."

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We have a very robust data set that shows the product is very safe”

Luiz Beling, Monsanto

The malformations affected the regions of the heart and the head. They were similar, says Dr Carrasco, to some of the defects that have shown up in children in the GM agricultural belt.

This was experimental, laboratory evidence:

"You cannot connect both things together because in order to know the cause of these malformations in children, you have to do an experiment with children and that's not possible", he continues. "But it's a red light to say we should look at the health problems in the territory where we are using these toxics."

Dr Carrasco's findings, published in 2010, remain controversial. Monsanto rejects them.

"Dr Carrasco's study is refuted by a lot of other scientists as well as by us," says Luiz Beling, Monsanto's President for the southern Latin American region.

"We weren't surprised by the results given the methodology used. Embryos are not the best way to test the effectiveness of the products and the impact on human health. The best way to do it is to use live animals. We have a very robust data set that shows the product is very safe. There is no evidence that if properly used, glyphosate causes any harm to the health of a human being.

"I think the opportunity we have as an industry is - how do we make sure the regulation is in place and enforced so growers use the products the right way?"

Across the GM belt people complain that laws governing how close to communities crop spraying is allowed, are not respected. There are also reports of families using empty agrochemical containers to store water in the home.

Near Leones, deep in the soya country of the Province of Cordoba, Alejandro Ferrero's farm of 1,200 hectares has been in the family since 1921. Some 700 hectares are soya - a sea of golden beige, ready for harvest. Ferrero embraced GM technology right at the start of the biotech revolution, and for soya alone it has brought him a 40-50% rise in yield. He doesn't believe the claims of a connection between agrochemicals and ill-health.

Alejandro Ferrero has embraced GM technology on his farm in Cordoba

"I think there just aren't the serious scientific studies to prove it. There's a tendency to blame soya and GM crops for many bad things - it's political. But until I see serious scientific studies, I'll continue to use these chemicals. On the other hand, I'm conscious these are chemicals and we have to use them responsibly."

Ferrero says he has reduced the amount of agrochemicals he applies to his crops over the last 20 years. But across Argentina, their use has increased eight-fold since the early 1990s to more than 300 million litres a year.

What has happened is that weeds have become resistant, so chemicals are mixed, or they are used in higher concentrations. Or, farmers simply don't understand or follow the instructions properly.

One of the original arguments used to promote the introduction of genetically modified agriculture was that the burden of agrochemical use would fall. So given the levels of herbicides and pesticides being used in Argentina, is GM technology failing? Not according to Monsanto's Luiz Beling.

"Thirty-five million tons of grain were produced in Argentina in 1990, compared to about 100 million now. That's a huge growth - triple the amount of grain produced. Yes, the amount of chemicals used has gone up. But what nobody talks about is the level of toxicity. Prior to 1995 the level of toxicity of products was much higher. And with the advent of Roundup and glyphosate - a very safe product of low toxicity, the level of toxicity has gone down."

So what is the government's view on the debate in Argentina? The Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Technology all declined requests for an interview.

In Avia Terai, Viviana Perez hears the buzz of a light plane going over, on its way to fumigate the fields.

Sitting in her wheelchair next to Viviana in their small front garden, is her 14 year old daughter, Nadia.

"There is no medicine for my daughter. The doctors told me the cause of her illness was partly genetic, but also that agrochemicals were a big influence," says Viviana.

Nadia's illness is progressive.

"I would love my daughter to have the same ability as she did before - to be able to walk around and to talk to me."

There is no evidence to prove Nadia's illness developed as a result of her mother's exposure to crop spraying. In Chaco, the local Minister of Public Health, Antonio Morante, a medical doctor who was born in Avia Terai, is responding to the worries of locals like Viviana. He wants to commission an independent health study in the province.

"We want someone to come in from outside and carry out an exhaustive analysis of all these cases. As a doctor, as a minister and as a Chaqueno, I'm concerned young women are having recurrent miscarriages, that children are born with deformities, that there are many examples of cancer. But we also have many cases in areas where they don't use agrochemicals. So we must treat this with scientific rigour - that's what we're doing this year."

(Dr Andres Carrasco spoke to the BBC in Buenos Aires - his death was announced in Argentina on Saturday 10 May 2014).

Argentina: GMs' New Frontline is presented by Linda Pressly for Assignment on BBC World Service - you can listen to it on BBC iPlayer

Source:  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373134

GIVE BEES A CHANCE

                             Film From Greenpeace

KEEPING AMERICANS FAT IS GLUTTONOUSLY BIG BIZ - GMA FIGHTS VERMONT'S NEW LAW

Published on Friday, May 9, 2014 by Common Dreams

Food Industry Giants to Wage Legal Battle to Defeat Vermont's Landmark GMO Labeling Law

The GMA wasted no time in announcing its lawsuit to defeat the pro-labeling legislation

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Photo: Antoine.Couturier/cc/flickrAs pro-labeling advocates were cheering Vermont's passage of a GMO labeling bill on Thursday, a powerful food industry lobbing group announced its plans to file a federal lawsuit to overturn the law.

Governor Peter Shumlin's signature yesterday marked a landmark moment as Vermont became the first state to enact a no-strings attached law mandating the labeling of genetically modified food and preventing GMO foods from being labeled as "natural."

In response, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food and beverage industry giants like Pepsico and Cargill and poured millions into defeatingmeasures in California and Washington, said it would sue the state — likely an unsurprising development to Vermont, which has already set up a Food Fight Fund site to "mount a powerful defense" against legal battles.

The GMA issued a statement on Thursday cheering GMO crops as having "important benefits for people and our planet" and calling Vermont's law "critically flawed and not in the best interests of consumers."

The statement also included an announcement from the group that it would be starting a legal battle against Vermont, saying that government "has no compelling interest in warning consumers about foods containing GM ingredients, making this law’s legality suspect at best."

"In light of this fact, in the coming weeks GMA will file suit in federal court against the state of Vermont to overturn the law."

The GMA statement urges support instead for labeling legislation from Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, which has been dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act and criticized as a "Monsanto, Koch Brothers alliance."

The GMA is also investing current efforts to discredit the film Fed Up, which opens in theaters on Friday, and is described as "the film the food industry doesn’t want you to see."

According to reporting on Friday by Christina Wilkie in the Huffington Post:

Days before the film's release, a new website appeared that at first looks nearly identical to the official "Fed Up" site. But instead of featuring the movie trailer and showtimes, the site adopts the popular online quiz format, luring people in with a challenge: "Think you know the facts about 'Fed Up?' Take the quiz."

The "quiz," it turns out, is nine "true or false" questions. Six of them are statements made by doctors and food policy experts in "Fed Up," such as, "Food companies have caused the obesity rate to skyrocket." If you click "true," you'll get a big, fat "incorrect," and below that, some selectively edited figures about obesity rates. The other three questions are about the food industry, and the steps it claims to have taken to combat obesity. The correct answer for these is "true."

As for who is behind this propaganda page for the food processing industry, say hello to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the primary lobbying group for the nation's largest food and beverage companies.

The lobbying group launched the dummy website, called FedUpFacts.com, on Wednesday, the same day it purchased Google ads for search terms related to the documentary, including its title. The ads direct back to the quiz site, where there is a disclosure notice at the bottom of the page: "FedUpFacts is brought to you by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, representing the makers of the world's favorite food, beverage and consumer products."

The filmmakers, however, hope to put a spotlight on the fact that "far more of us are sick from what we are eating than anyone has ever realized," and to call out the "decades-long misinformation campaign orchestrated by Big Food and aided and abetted by the U.S. Government."

Click to see Trailer: Fed Up

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/09-6