Thursday, July 19, 2012

HELL NO TO THE 2012 FARM BILL - SPEAK OUT!

Organic Consumers AssociationTell Congress: No Free Pass for Monsanto!

  • By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director
    Organic Consumers Fund, July 17, 2012
Urgent action is needed today! The House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision that would give Monsanto and the other biotech companies a free pass for new GMOs and the increased herbicide use they cause.
TAKE ACTION!  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25864.cfm
Urgent action is needed today!
Monsanto has launched a series of sneak attacks on organic and non-GMO farmers and consumers. They began by attaching a rider to the U.S. House of Representatives' 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would make it impossible for organic and non-GMO farmers and seed growers to defend themselves against GMO contamination. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm)

The rider would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even when courts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally. According to the courts, this results in "the potential elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."

***Now, they've gotten a similar provision attached to the House version of the Farm Bill! ***

This even more dangerous provision would stop the EPA from reviewing new and expanded uses of pesticides (often caused by the introduction of new herbicide-resistant GMO crops) and require the USDA to make the approval of new genetically engineered crops easier and faster, limiting USDA review to 180 days.

While the USDA has never rejected a new GMO crop, public opposition, environmental concerns, and litigation to protect farmers have slowed new approvals. These Monsanto "riders" give Monsanto and the other biotechnology companies a free pass for new GMOs. According to the Center for Food Safety, these new riders would:

--Outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental law, or by any other agency other than USDA.  For example, harm to protected species could occur without any input from our expert wildlife agencies.

--Prohibit other agencies from offering expert input in the review process and instead limit review to solely USDA under the PPA.  However, meaningful review would likely be eliminated by this rider, as USDA's analysis of potential harmful impacts is barred from informing any approval decision.  The agency is also barred from using its broader statutory authority granted in the PPA of 2000, and instead is limited to its old 1957 Federal Plant Pest Act authority.
   
--Force the backdoor approval of GE crops, even if USDA has not reviewed and approved them, through unreasonably short deadlines, which, if not met by the agency, would default to immediate approval and commercialization.  The provisions would also bar any agency funds be spent on impacts analysis beyond the riders' narrow and time-forced approval.

--Codify a dangerous national policy of allowing transgenic contamination in crops and foods, risking loss of GE-sensitive domestic and export markets and loss of biodiversity.

--Limit EPA's oversight of biotech crops engineered to produce or contain a pesticide by forcing the agency to choose the least burdensome choice for industry, regardless of environmental consequences.

Tell Congress: No free pass for the biotech industry's ne...http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25864.cfm

Text of the Monsanto Farm Bill rider:
 SEC. 10011. PETITIONS TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
a)       PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. The Plant Protection Act is amended by inserting after section 411 (7 U.S.C. 7711) the following new section:
 
SEC. 411A. PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
a)      PETITION. A person may petition the Secretary for a determination that an organism that is subject to regulation by the Secretary as a plant pest under this Act is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
b)      REVIEW OF PETITION.
1.      ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REQUIRED.  In reviewing a petition submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct the following with respect to an organism that is the subject of the petition:
A.      PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. An assessment of the likelihood that such organism is a plant pest.
B.      ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. An analysis of any likely adverse effects of such organism on the soil, water, air quality, non-target organisms, and listed threatened and endangered species and the critical habitat of such species for the environment in which such organism is likely to be grown or otherwise used under the conditions specified in such petition.
2.      DETERMINATION. The Secretary shall issue a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act if the Secretary determines, based on sound science and the plant pest risk assessment conducted under paragraph (1)(A), that an organism is not likely to be a plant pest.
3.      REVIEW PERIOD.
A.      INITIAL REVIEW PERIOD. Not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary determines that a petition submitted under subsection (a) is complete, the Secretary shall complete the plant pest risk assessment and the environmental analysis required under paragraph (1) and issue a determination with respect to such petition under paragraph (2).
B.      EXTENSION. The Secretary may extend the one-year review period referred to in subparagraph (A) for a petition for one additional period of not more than 180 days if the Secretary determines that additional review is necessary. The Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the petition, in writing, of the reasons for the extension and an estimate of the time period necessary to complete the review.
4.      EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET TIME PERIOD. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if after completing the plant pest risk assessment, but not the environmental analysis, required under paragraph (1), the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that an organism is a plant pest and does not grant or deny a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism within the time period required under paragraph (3), such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
5.      EFFECT ON PESTICIDE REGISTRATION.  In the case of an organism containing a plant-incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) with respect to which an application for registration of the plant-incorporated protectant is pending under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a et seq.), a determination made under paragraph (2) 10 that an organism is not a plant pest or the deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not be effective until the registration of the plant-incorporated protectant contained in such organism is approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 16 136a et seq.). If such registration is not approved, a determination made under paragraph (2) that an organism is not a plant pest or a deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not become effective.
6.      SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. Notwithstanding a determination that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (2) or that such organism has been deemed not to be a plant pest under paragraph (4), the Secretary may issue a determination, based on information discovered after the date of such determination or the date on which the organism was so deemed and sound science, that an organism is a plant pest for purposes of this Act.
7.      PUBLIC NOTICE.
A.      NOTICE. The Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register of
i)                the grant or denial of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to an organism; or
ii)               the deeming that such organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4).
B.      RISK ASSESSMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall provide to the person who submitted a petition under subsection (a), and make available to the public, the risk assessment and environmental analysis prepared under paragraph (1) with respect to such petition.
c)      APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.
1.      EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS PERFORMED. Not withstanding any other provision of law, the environ mental analysis required under subsection (b)(1) and as specifically described in such subsection shall be the only analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism that is the subject of a petition submitted under subsection (a) required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such a petition.
2.      PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER ANALYSES. No funds made available by any Act shall be obligated, expended, or used for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism conducted for purposes of this section other than the environmental analysis required under subsection (b)(1).
3.      PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall not require or solicit any financial assistance from a person submitting a petition under subsection (a) for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism or for any other analysis or procedure not specifically authorized by subsection (b)(1).
d)      USE OF DATA FROM PERMITS FOR PURPOSES OF PETITION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT AN ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall use data collected under a permit issued by the Secretary under section 411(a) with respect to an organism, among other relevant data, for purposes of the review of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism.
b)      AUTHORITY OF REVIEW FOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO PERMITS. Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) is amended
1.      by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new subsections:
c)       LIMITATION ON ANALYSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the analyses or procedures required under the regulations issued by the Secretary under the Federal Plant Pest Act and continued in effect in accordance with section 438(c) shall be the only analyses or procedures required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a).
d)     ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in reviewing an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) that is not excluded from environmental review under regulations issued by the Secretary in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection (or any successor regulations), the Secretary shall conduct an environmental analysis described in section 411A(b)(1)(B). Such analysis shall be the only environmental analysis or procedure required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such an application.
c) TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
1. COMPLETENESS.
A.    COMPLETENESS OF PETITIONS. Not withstanding any other provision of law, including section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such petition to be complete and maintain the status such petition had in the process for the review of such petition on such date under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.
B.     COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including subsection (c) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) (as amended by subsection (b)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of such section (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such application to be complete and maintain the status such application had in the process for the review of such application on such date under subsection (a) of such section.
2. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
A.    USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of a petition submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to an organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)) for purposes of a petition submitted under subsection (a) of such section with respect to such organism.
B.     USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to such organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under subsection (d) of such section (as amended by subsection (b)) with respect to such organism.
3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN PETITIONS.
A.    PENDING PETITIONS WITHOUT A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. Notwithstanding section 411A(b)(2) of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the length of the period for the review of petitions submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section for which a plant pest risk assessment has not been completed on or before such date of enactment.
B.    PENDING PETITIONS WITH A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT.
i)      DEEMING OF CERTAIN PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to each covered petition, if the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that the organism that is the subject of such covered petition is a plant pest and the Secretary does not grant or deny such covered petition not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
ii)     COVERED PETITION DEFINED. In this subparagraph, the term "covered petition" means a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for which a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment have been published and a notice and comment period on each assessment has been completed as of such date of enactment.
4. REGULATIONS. Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
 
 
SEC. 10012. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
a)      RELOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE RELATING TO NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended
1.   by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
2.   by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection:
   e) NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK.
1.      IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall establish a program to be known as the 'National Clean Plant Network' (referred to in this subsection as the 'Program').
2.      REQUIREMENTS. Under the Program, the Secretary shall establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and pathogen elimination services
A.    to produce clean propagative plant material; and
B.    to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material in sites located throughout the United States.
3.      AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN PLANT SOURCE MATERIAL. Clean plant source material produced or maintained under the Program may be made available to
A.    a State for a certified plant program of the State; and
B.   private nurseries and producers.
4. CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION. In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall
                  A.   consult with
                           i)      State departments of agriculture; and
ii)    land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and
C.      to the extent practicable and with input from the appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant centers.
b)      FUNDING. Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is amended
1.   in paragraph (3), by striking "and" at the end;
2.  in paragraph (4), by striking "and each fiscal year thereafter." and inserting "; and";        and
3.  by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
         "5. $71,500,000 for fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.".
c)      REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION. Section 10202 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is repealed.
d)      CLARIFICATION OF USE OF FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
g)     RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW. The use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).
 
SEC. 10013. AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF PLANTS.
a)      REGULATION OF PLANTS UNDER PLANT PROTECTION ACT. Subject to subsection (b), any living stage of a plant, including any nucleic acid or other genetic material as contained in such plant, shall be exclusively subject to regulation under statutes under which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue regulations with respect to plants, including the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
b)      REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. A pesticidal substance contained in a plant shall be subject to regulation as a plant incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
c)      REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. The regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), including section 3(c)(1)(C) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(C)), section 3(c)(2)(A) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)), section 7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136e), section 8 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136f), section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136g), and section 17 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136o), shall
1.      be based on sound science;
2.      use the least burdensome requirements; and
3.      provide for exemptions from the requirements otherwise applicable to pesticides that are not plant-incorporated protectants.
d)      DEFINITIONS. In this section:
1.      PLANT. The term "plant" has the meaning given such term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702).
2.      PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCE. The term "pesticidal substance" means a substance or a mixture of substances that
A.   is contained in any living stage of a plant that
i)      as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, is subject to part 340 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations; or
ii)    has been determined not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(2) or deemed not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(4); and
B.    is intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
 
SEC. 10014. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report on the measures taken and proposed to be taken by the Secretaries and the Administrator to provide for balanced and appropriate regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology products, by
1.      reducing regulatory burdens on research conducted by academic institutions, small businesses, and public entities in developing lower-cost plant and animal sources of food, feed, fuel, and fiber developed through biotechnology, with special emphasis on minor use crops, orphan crops, and sources of protein;
2.      identifying categories of products developed through biotechnology for which a history of safe use has been established and providing with respect to such products reduced data requirements, expedited review periods, exemptions from regulation, and other measures, as appropriate, based on sound science; and
3.      developing and implementing a cohesive national policy for the low-level presence of agronomic biotechnology material in crops, including grain and other commodity crops, for food, feed, and processing.

JEFFREY SMITH TELLS IT LIKE IT IS: THE REAL DEAL ON GMO'S

The Anti-GMO Tipping Point  
April/May 2012
Photo: Jeffrey Smith speaks at a
Green Festival.
Dynamic Green Festival® speaker Jeffrey Smith has traveled around the world, talking with government leaders and community activists on the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply. Known for his ability to translate scientific studies on GMOs into language that everyday people can understand, Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating (Yes Books, 2005) and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Yes Books, 2003). Smith is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), a nonprofit group that educates policy makers and the public on the risks associated with GM foods. He’s also been the subject of a targeted, robust industry campaign to discredit his work, but we think you might want to listen to him anyway. Learn more about GMO risks and subscribe to a free newsletter at responsibletechnology.org, and find out how to avoid GMOs at NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.
Jeffrey Smith speaks at a Green Festival. 


Green America/Tracy Fernandez Rysavy: How did the potential dangers of GMOs first land on your radar?
Jeffrey Smith: It came from a warning by a scientist at a lecture I was attending in 1996, who laid out a number of hard scientific facts showing that there was no way companies could introduce safe GM foods, given the primitive and unreliable nature of the technology.I realized that the information was powerful and compelling, but it was known by very few and largely among scientific circles, so I endeavored to translate the scientific concerns into language others could understand.
I started with lectures and brochures and then the book Seeds of Deception, which became the bestselling book on GMOs. As a result, I launched the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). I’m not against genetic engineering (GE) as a science—not against GE medicine, if the scientists understand the side effects that can occur. I’m not against gene therapy, where you correct a defective gene and save lives. I’m not against GE studies in labs. But to feed the products of this infant science to people without studying their effects and releasing them into the environment where they can’t be recalled is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.

GA/Tracy: I think many people have at least a vague knowledge of the impact GMOs have on the environment, but very few appear to understand that they also may affect human health.
Jeffrey Smith: When you look at the big picture, GMOs may be a powerful contributor to the rise of major diseases in the US: food allergies, irritable bowel, and a host of other problems. There’s a shorthand way of referring to the studies that find health concerns: The American Academy of Environmental Medicine determined that GMOs pose a significant health threat, citing several animal feeding studies showing reproductive problems, accelerated aging, gastro-intestinal disorders, immune system dysfunction, organ damage, and problems in the regulation of cholesterol and insulin.

The Academy has urged all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets. When I speak to doctors around the country, they report seeing an increase in the incidence and severity of certain diseases, which they believe are GMO-related. Moreover, when these doctors take people off of GMO diets, they report that the symptoms—of migraines, gastro-intestinal disorders, weight problems, and more—start to disappear.
GA/Tracy: Can you give some examples of the troublesome studies?
Jeffrey Smith: The animal feeding studies for reproductive dysfunctions are astounding. Rodents that eat GM soy had changes in young sperm cells. Their testicles turned from pink to blue. The DNA function in the embryo offspring changed. In one study where female rats were fed GM soy, more than half of their babies died within three weeks, compared to a ten percent death rate in those fed non-GMO soy. The survivors from the GMO-fed group were largely infertile. In another, most hamsters fed GMOs lost the ability to have babies by the third generation. Infant mortality was also at four to five times the rate of non-GMO eaters. Mice fed GMO corn had smaller and fewer babies. This is just one topic. In other animal feeding studies, we also see toxicity in the liver and kidneys as a consistent result. Likewise, every competent test that evaluated immune-system problems in animals fed GMOs found them.
There are hardly any long-term feeding studies and no post-marketing surveillance. The only human feeding study ever conducted confirmed that the gene inserted into soybeans to make them “Roundup Ready”—or non-killable by the pesticide Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate—transferred into the DNA of the bacteria living inside our intestines, and the transferred gene may have continued to function. The bacteria became “Roundup Ready.” These results could mean that long after we stop eating GMOs, we could have GM proteins produced inside our intestines. If the Bt toxin-producing gene from corn transfers, we might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

GA/Tracy: There’s always this widespread assumption that if these foods were unsafe, the government wouldn’t allow them on the market. Is our government protecting us?
Jeffrey Smith: In a word, no. When you read the formerly secret internal memos of the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration] scientists at the time they were evaluating GMO policy in 1991-2, there was an overwhelming consensus that GMOs could create allergies, toxins, new diseases. The FDA scientists repeatedly warned their superiors, asking for long-term, rigorous safety studies. However, the White House had instructed the FDA to promote GMO technology. So they hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto attorney, to oversee the creation of GMO policy for the FDA. Under Taylor’s watch, the FDA publicly claimed it was not aware of any information saying that GMOs were different from conventional foods. On the basis of that lie, the FDA said no testing of GMOs were required, and companies like Monsanto could determine whether their own products were safe, without telling the FDA or consumers. Michael Taylor became Monsanto’s VP and is now back in the FDA as the food safety czar.

GA/Tracy: Are there any studies that say GMOs are safe?
Jeffrey Smith: Sure, but they’re most often performed by the biotech companies themselves. In Genetic Roulette, I have 41 pages showing how these companies have bad science down to a science. They rig their research—using the wrong detection or statistical methods. They dilute or overcook their samples. Animal feeding studies are too short and superficial to find anything going wrong—and things do go wrong, in spite of their best efforts, but they ignore those findings.
In one case, a Monsanto study showed that Monsanto’s GM corn varieties had no effect on health. Then a group of independent scientists re-analyzed the data and linked it to signs of organ toxicity. When the company wanted to show that milk from cows treated with rBGH [recombinant bovine growth hormone] contained very little bovine hormone, it had its scientists pasteurize the milk 120 times longer than normal. When that didn’t work, the scientists added powdered milk, pasteurized it some more, and finally destroyed 90 percent of the hormone. The FDA reported that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of bovine hormone in milk from cows treated with rBGH, ignoring the obvious flaws in study.
GA/Tracy: You’ve said we’re at a “tipping point” of consumer concern when it comes to GMOs. Can you explain?

Jeffrey Smith: There’s no consumer benefit to a GMO. They’re not like extra salt or sugar, which are under attack for health reasons but provide taste. GMOs are simply soaked in poison. They’re either herbicide-tolerant or they have an insect-killing toxin in every cell of the plant, including the food portion. No one is clamoring for a daily dose. For these reasons, we believe a tipping point can be achieved without convincing majority of US, just by giving the right information to those inclined to avoid GMOs. If GMOs become unpopular like trans-fats, why would a company keep using them? Even if a company sees a tiny drop in market share that it can point to anti-GMO sentiment in US consumers as the cause, that will be a powerful signal that it’s time to start removing GMOs from their products.
We’re seeing evidence that the tipping point is approaching. Non-GMO labels are one of fastest growing labels. There are GMO labeling bills being introduced in more than a dozen states. In fact, we’re seeing a watershed opportunity in California: There’s a ballot initiative now calling for mandatory labeling of all GM-laden foods sold in the state. If that passes—and we believe it will in November—I believe that companies would rather eliminate GMOs than admit to consumers that they’re using them.
GA/Tracy: Are the dangers reversible? How can we protect ourselves?
Jeffrey Smith: That’s the question: What about our organs, our gut bacteria, etc.? I do know that some doctors are having great results getting people off of GMOs. At least one study fed mice GM soy for eight months, and saw significant changes to the liver, pancreas, and testicles. Then, the researchers put the mice on non-GM soy for a month, and the problems started to reverse. So we have good news there. On our Web site, we have free materials, including our Non-GMO Food Guide. We have a Non-GMO Tipping Point Network where people join others to educate their communities. We’re also launching a campaign to protect children, who are most at risk, from GM foods. We invite people to participate in the non-GMO revolution.
Source:  http://www.greenamerica.org/pubs/greenamerican/articles/AprilMay2012/Green-America-Interview-with-Jeffrey-Smith.cfm

DRINKING DIRTIER WATER IN PLASTICS? TAP INTO THIS & SAVE THOU$AND$

Bottled Water Industry Waging Insidious War On Tap WaterBottled Water Industry Waging Insidious War On Tap Water


by Judy Molland April 6, 2012


How did it happen that the bottled water industry can take what is clean, readily available and free in the west, package it in non-biodegradable plastic, and sell it back to consumers at highly inflated prices?

How could so many customers fall for this trick?

Not only that, but profits continue to rise. In 2010, more than 2 billion liters were consumed in the UK, which equates to 33 liters per person, a figure projected to rise to 40 liters by 2020.

In the US, more than 40 billion liters were sold last year, in an estimated 28 billion plastic bottles that it took 17m barrels of oil to manufacture (enough to fuel about 100,000 cars for the entire year). The industry in the US is worth $22 billion a year and sales are increasing at a rate of 5.4 per cent annually.

On an even more depressing side note, nearly 8 out of every 10 of those bottles ends up in a landfill, translating to about a 23 percent recycling rate.

Why Do Consumers Continue To Buy Bottled Water?

One reason is the aggressive marketing campaign that is being waged by the bottled water industry. In the UK last month, the Natural Hydration Council (NHC), an industry body formed by the UK’s three biggest bottlers: Nestlé Waters (makers of Buxton, Perrier and San Pellegrino), Danone Waters (Evian and Volvic) and Highland Spring, handed its lucrative public relations account to Pegasus PR, whose clients include Pfizer and Bayer.

From The Ecologist:

Pegasus’s role is to ensure the NHC’s ‘authoritative voice in the hydration debate is heard more clearly’ and consolidate the successes of its predecessor, Munro & Foster, tasked in 2009 with preventing bottled water from being compared to tap water.

The NHC was formed in 2008 to prevent declining sales: 2,240m litres of bottled water were drunk in 2006, 2,125m in 2007 and 2,005m in 2008. Price, negative blind tastings (consumers prefer tap or perceive no difference) and campaigns such as those run by London’s Evening Standard, to encourage people to ask for tap water in restaurants, all played their part.

Apparently the campaign worked: by 2009, domestic consumption had bounced back to 2,040m liters, then to 2,050m liters in 2010; 2011 figures are expected to be around 2,100m liters.

Your Right To Choose Is At Stake!

In the US, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) has cleverly turned bottled water into a freedom of choice issue. It likes to point out, as it did in 2008 when Toronto City Council chose to prevent plastic bottles from being sold on municipal premises, that ‘less healthy beverages [are] packaged in a denser grade of plastic at twice the volume of bottled water’.
The IBWA is also attempting to make the issue a constitutional one through its consumer arm, Bottled Water Matters, a ‘pro-bottle’ internet campaign aimed at encouraging Americans to stand up for their right to bottled water.

According to its video: ‘There are people who want to take your choice away, people who want bottled water off store shelves because they think it’s unnecessary, but you know that’s not true.’ ‘Bottled water is one of the healthiest drinks on the shelf’ and “Your freedom of choice is at stake.”

Thankfully, Not Everyone Believes These Lies


However, more than 90 US universities – including Harvard, Brown and Vermont – have banned or are intending to ban bottled water on campus. New students are being given stainless-steel bottles and asked to refill from filtered water taps. Meanwhile more than 100 towns and cities have voted to ban bottled water to reduce waste.



Such campaigns are taken seriously because the industry’s biggest markets are the US and Europe, says Res Gehriger, the Swiss journalist and filmmaker behind Bottled Life: The Truth about Nestlé’s Business with Water, which explores Nestlé’s commercialisation of community-owned water sources in the developing world.

In addition, earlier this year the National Park Service voted to ban the sale of single-use plastic water bottles at Grand Canyon National Park, something which was already happening in Zion National Park, in Utah, which created a similar ban in 2008 and eliminated 60,000 plastic bottles from the park in 2009.

According to the Natural Defenses Council, 40 percent of bottled water is nothing more than tap water anyway. Tap water is more highly regulated than bottled water, and it’s virtually free. Go with refillable bottles for you and your kids!


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/bottled-water-industry-waging-insidious-war-on-tap-water.html#ixzz214rBGleZ

CARRAGEENAN INGREDIENT IN "MILK" PRODUCTS - LINKED TO 100 HUMAN DISEASES?


Non-Dairy Milk Additive Could Make You SickNon-Dairy Milk Additive Could Make You Sick

by , July 16, 2012  
Do you choose soy milk, almond milk, kefir, or low-fat dairy because you think it’s better for your family? A recent report found that even these “healthy” products could be contaminated with a substance that  is classified by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible human carcinogen.”
The Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog group, recently published a report that shows a wide variety of organic brands of both low-fat dairy and non-dairy products contain carrageenan, a seaweed derivative used as a stabilizer and thickener in foods. Carrageenan keeps ingredients in beverages and creams from settling, so they can be consumed without shaking and have a pleasant creamy texture in the mouth.
Unfortunately, research funded by the National Institutes of Health raises serious concerns about harmful effects of carrageenan as an inflammatory agent on the human gastrointestinal tract. Even though carrageenan has been used by the food industry for nearly 50 years, it “so reliably causes inflammation that scientists actually use it to induce inflammation in biological experiments.”
In a recent statement to the National Organic Standards Board, Dr. Joanne Tobacman explained that carrageenan itself and its breakdown product both create dangerous inflammation, a condition that serves as the backbone of more than 100 human diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and arteriosclerosis. Inflammation also fuels other life-threatening diseases, including cancer.
In some cases, individuals suffering from chronic gastrointestinal symptoms have reported that their symptoms disappeared when they cut carrageenan out of their diets.
Although Cornucopia researchers are quick to acknolwedge that organic brands are still far more healthy than conventional alternatives, they stress that industry influence can often mean unsafe ingredients like carrageenan are allowed to slip through the regulatory cracks.
To avoid dairy and non-dairy foods that contain carrageenan, browse this handy shopping guide.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

"MONSANTO RIDER" EASY PICKINS FOR BIOTECH BILLION$$$ - AND BOATLOADS MORE (LIKE AGENT ORANGE 2,4-D, ON FOOD CROPS) CHEMICAL SALES

A provision included in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill would allow biotech crops to be planted even if courts rule they were approved illegally. (photo: Generation Green)Battle Looms Over Monsanto Rider on Capitol Hill 


A provision included in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill would allow biotech crops to be planted even if courts rule they were approved illegally. (photo: Generation Green)
By Charles Abbott, Carey Gillam, Reuter
19 July 2012
Efforts to write benefits for biotech seed companies into U.S. legislation, including the new Farm Bill, are sparking a backlash from groups that say the multiple measures would severely limit U.S. oversight of genetically modified crops.
From online petitions to face-to-face lobbying on Capitol Hill, an array of consumer and environmental organizations and individuals are ringing alarm bells over moves they say will eradicate badly needed safety checks on crops genetically modified to withstand herbicides, pests and pesticides.
The measures could speed the path to market for big biotech companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical that make billions of dollars from genetically altered corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops.
"They are trying to change the rules," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety, which has lawsuits pending against government regulators for failing to follow the law in approving certain biotech crops. "It is to the detriment of good governance, farmers and to the environment."
As early as next week the U.S. House of Representatives could take up one of the more controversial measures - a provision included in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill known as Section 733 that would allow biotech crops to be planted even if courts rule they were approved illegally.
Opponents call it the "Monsanto Rider" because Monsanto's genetically altered alfalfa and sugar beets have been subject to court challenges for illegal regulatory approvals.
Georgia Representative Jack Kingston, the powerful chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee, backs the measure, while U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee, has said he will try to kill it.
Even more sweeping changes limiting the U.S. regulatory system for GMO crops have been added to the 2013 U.S. Farm Bill, and biotech crop defenders say they have broad support for the changes. The current system is too cumbersome and slow for biotech companies trying to bring new technology to U.S. agriculture, and lengthy legal requirements currently in place invite costly lawsuits, they say.
The most popular biotech crops are those altered genetically so they withstand dousings of herbicides and resist pests. New technologies in development are aimed at making crops more drought tolerant and resistant to more types of weed killers.
"You've got farmers who have seeds in the barn and need to get seeds in the ground," said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "There is bipartisan support for all of these reforms in a broad context. Members from both sides agree (as does the administration) that reforms are needed."
US Farm Bill Fight
Although the appropriations measure limiting judicial authority over GMO crop regulatory actions raised the ire of opponents, the Farm Bill measures drawn up by the House Agriculture Committee are fueling vociferous opposition.
Last week 40 food businesses, retailers, family farmers and others sent a protest letter to House Agriculture Committee leaders calling on them to strike pro-biotech provisions added to the draft of the U.S. Farm Bill. The measures followed several court rulings that regulators did not follow legal requirements in approving some biotech crops, and would nullify just such legal requirements in the future.
Environmental hazards associated with biotech crops, including the rapid rise of "superweeds" that cannot be killed with traditional herbicides, would not have to be taken under consideration by regulators in new approvals, the critics say.
A controversial new type of corn developed by Dow Agrosciences, altered to allow more liberal spraying of the widely used 2,4-D broad leaf herbicide, could sidestep regulatory hurdles currently in place and gain swift approval under the new law. A different herbicide-tolerant GMO crop in the pipeline could also be fast-tracked if the measures become law.

The measures compress the time frame and scope of topics for review of crops and force backdoor approval of GMO crops if the USDA fails to meet the deadlines, critics say. Also, most notably, they would allow for the first time an acceptable level of contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops without recourse.
"The Farm Bill riders together would eliminate the much needed review of these novel crops, forcing hasty approvals in advancing the chemical industry's interests in selling their products," the National Family Farm Coalition, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Environmental Health and others said in a letter sent July 11 to House Agriculture Committee leaders.
The National Grain and Feed Association last week also expressed alarm, saying it and grain handlers, millers and processors and some food industry players are worried the measures could have "unintended consequences in domestic and export markets.
Easier and Faster
Monsanto, Dow and other defenders of the planned changes say they will make the regulatory process easier and faster while ensuring biotech crops are safe and effective.
"If the United States and the world are to reap the benefits of plant biotechnology, we need timely and science-based authorizations of the innovative biotech products that are in the technology pipeline," said Dow spokeswoman Kenda Resler-Friend. "Weed resistance challenges are getting worse by the day - compounded by the drought at hand - so it is essential to get technology into the hands of farmers who desperately need it."

Dow's application to commercialize a new herbicide-tolerant corn called Enlist has been with the USDA for more than three years.
Alongside corporate players, several farm and biotechnology trade groups have been pushing both the Farm Bill measures and the Section 733 addition to the appropriations bills.
These supporters say they need the 733 provision in particular to limit court action against biotech crop approvals so farmers can plant a crop without fear. Lawsuits have routinely delayed the sale of some biotech varieties worth billions of dollars for the industry.


The USDA approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, genetically altered to tolerate treatments of the company's Roundup herbicide, in 2005, for example. But environmental groups and some seed companies sued the USDA in 2006 and successfully forced the agency to rescind its approval after a federal court found the department had violated environmental law by failing to do a thorough environmental review before approving the product. A Supreme Court ruling in 2010 cleared the way for limited planting pending environmental reviews.
Planting of Roundup Ready sugar beets was also held up in court when a federal judge determined the USDA had illegally approved the crop without performing a full environmental review.
The appropriations language as well as language in the Farm Bill would reduce a court's ability to hold up biotech crops
"Litigation from anti-biotechnology groups has caused uncertainty for growers and has been a drain on USDA resources for several years," said Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher. "This provision provides an important assurance for farmers planting crops which have completed the U.S. regulatory process."

Monsanto, the world's largest seed company spent $6.37 million on Washington lobbying last year and $1.4 million so far this year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Dow Chemical spent $830,000 last year on lobbying on agricultural issues.

It is not clear if the Farm Bill or the appropriations measure will be taken to a vote by the House of Representatives before the August recess. They debate could linger into the November election, or beyond.


The Center for Food Safety, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other public interest groups held a press briefing Tuesday in Washington calling the the policy changes "dangerous."
"No one seems to be sure what is going to happen and when. It is a constant threat," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety and also George Kimbrell's uncle.

PROMINENT LAW PROFESSIONALS JOIN APPEAL AGAINST MONSANTO'S SEED PATENT AGGRESSION

Landmark Family Farmers Lawsuit Grows

Prominent Allies Join Effort to Reinstate Challenge to Monsanto Patents


WASHINGTON - July 18 - Eleven prominent law professors and fourteen renowned organic, Biodynamic®, food safety and consumer non-profit organizations have filed separate briefs with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit arguing farmers have the right to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement by agricultural giant Monsanto. The brief by the law professors and the brief by the non-profit organizations were filed in support of the seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms that last year brought a protective legal action seeking a ruling that Monsanto could never sue them for patent infringement if they became contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed. The case was dismissed by the district court in February and that dismissal is now pending review by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs recently filed their opening appeal brief with the appeals court.

"Monsanto continues to claim that Plaintiffs' concerns about being accused of patent infringement after being contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed are unsubstantiated and unjustified," said attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit legal services organization Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which represents the plaintiffs in the suit against Monsanto known as Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto. "But now two impeccable groups have joined with plaintiffs in explaining to the Court of Appeals how real and legitimate their concerns really are, especially since Monsanto continues to refuse to simply promise never to sue contaminated farmers for patent infringement."
The first group filing a brief in support of the OSGATA plaintiffs includes eleven prominent law professors from throughout the United States, including Professor Margo Bagley of the University of Virginia School of Law, Professor Michael Burstein of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Professor Rochelle C. Dreyfuss of the New York University School of Law, Professor Brett Frischmann of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Professor Erika George of University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, Professor Shubha Ghosh of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Professor Megan M. La Belle of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Professor Kali Murray of Marquette University Law School, Professor Ted Sichelman of the University of San Diego School of Law, Katherine J. Strandburg of the New York University School of Law, and Melissa Wasserman of the University of Illinois College of Law.
In their amicus brief, the law professors point out that, "broad standing to challenge the validity of patents ensures that the courts can effectively play their critical role in screening out invalid patents." They add, "In actions challenging the validity of a patent, the alleged injury is not only the risk of an infringement suit, but a present restraint on economic activity due to the presence of a potentially invalid exclusive right." The law professors went on to note, "But the validity of issued patents is uncertain until they are tested in court. This uncertainty creates real and present risks for persons wishing to engage in economic activity that might be the subject of an issued patent....When a person is deterred from undertaking valuable activity by the risk that the activity may encroach on another's exclusive rights, that person has incurred an actual, concrete and particularized injury."
"We are grateful for the brilliant and powerful amici briefs submitted to the appeals court by these two stellar groups, supporting our family farmers' quest for justice," said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Plaintiff, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. "An erroneous interpretation of law by a single judge is not going to cause our farmers to abandon our rights to farm the way we choose, to grow good food and good seed for our families and for our customers, free from Monsanto's trespass and contamination. Denial of the property rights of American farmers is an attack on the property rights of every American. We will fight until family farmers receive justice."


The second group filing a brief in support of the OSGATA plaintiffs, made up of fourteen non-profit agricultural and consumer organizations, includes the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Food and Water Watch, International Organic Inspectors Association, Maine Alternative Agriculture Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environmental Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, Organic Consumers Association, Slow Food USA, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, and Wisconsin Natural Food Associates.
In their amicus brief, the non-profit agricultural and consumer organizations point out, "The Plaintiff and Amici organizations, farmers, and seed businesses have suffered significant harm due to the threat of patent infringement suits by Monsanto." They also noted, "Defendants have chosen to patent products that, by their very nature, will inevitably end up on the private property of people who have no desire to use them. Plaintiffs' uncontroverted allegations show that, for the first time in history, they can be sued for something as natural as pollen drift, while simultaneously being forced to take expensive and burdensome steps in order to continue their normal businesses. The quandary of this type of liability is precisely the sort of situation that the Declaratory Judgment Act was intended to address." The amicus brief further explained, "The Supreme court has stated that the plaintiff "need not 'bet the farm'" yet in this case, that is precisely what the district court effectively required Plaintiffs to do in order to get their day in court - continue farming the disputed crops until they are unquestionably liable to Defendants for potentially crippling levels of damage before being able to seek a declaratory judgment as to their rights...The district court noted that 'unlicensed - and unintented - use of transgenic seeds is inevitable...' but then failed to address the fact that such unlicensed use is actionable and places Plaintiffs at risk of enforcement actions by Defendants."
"It's time to end Monsanto's scorched-earth campaign of frivolous lawsuits against America's family farmers," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots community of more than 300,000 farmers and citizens dedicated to reforming food and agriculture. "Monsanto's claims against farmers for patent infringement are exceedingly weak, violating Americans' most basic sense of fairness and decency. Our Founding Fathers would be outraged", stated Murphy.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



July 18, 2012
9:14 AM
CONTACT: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA)

Media contact:
Jim Gerritsen
Email: press@osgata.org
Phone: 207. 429. 9765
Send General Inquiries to:


General Manager
Laura Parker
P.O. Box 512
Montrose CO, 81402
Email: laura.parker@osgata.org
Phone: 970. 275. 3409
.###


The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) develops, protects and promotes the organic seed trade and its growers, and assures that the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed, free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture.

Source:   http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/07/18