Friday, August 24, 2012

FRANKENKIDS 101 BROUGHT TO YOU BY OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT THE "BIG 6"

Looking for Kids' Books? Avoid This Propaganda

Published on Wednesday, August 22, 2012 by PR Watch

Did you know that genetic engineering (GE) "is helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home"? A trade group funded by Monsanto wants your kids to believe it.

The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has published a kids' book on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that purports to give kids "a closer look at biotechnology. You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health."

If that book doesn't appeal to you, you could try a nanotechnology coloring book made by a company that produces such things as "colloidal silver nanoparticles" used in antibacterial products that find their way into the water supply and can be poisonous to the human system. It compares nanotechnologies like these silvers to "the smell of baking cookies."

Or perhaps a "biosolids" workbook made by wastewater treatment facilities? It directs kids to grow sunflowers in toxic sewage sludge to see how they grow.

Monsanto Brainwashing: GMO Myths for Kids

GMO Kids Book (Source: Council for Biotechnology Information)Monsanto and its cohorts among the "Big 6" pesticide and GMO companies -- Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Bayer, Syngenta, Dupont, and BASF -- are fighting a battle with California voters on whether or not GMO foods should be labeled. In the meantime, the trade group CBI, whose membership consists solely of those six corporations, is busily educating children on the supposed benefits of GMOs.

As several outlets have reported, CBI is promoting its dis-informative Biotech Basics Activity Book for kids. The book has cute illustrations and introduces kids to the "neat topic" of biotechnology.

Note that the industry uses the term "biotechnology" exclusively. According to Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 37: California Right to Know Campaign, "Polls show that the term 'biotechnology' is viewed much more favorably than 'genetically modified' or 'genetically engineered food.' Yet the term most easily recognized and understood by people is 'genetically engineered food.' So they are obviously trying to change the language for PR purposes, not accuracy or clarity." The choice of terms is a subtle example of the transfer or association technique to project positive qualities of one concept onto another.

On page four, the book asks, "How can biotechnology help the health of the Earth and its people?" It directs kids to "look closer" and use the decoder at the side of the page to figure out three ways that biotechnology helps us. The answers are at the end of the book.

Strangely, some of the hazards associated with GMOs, such as a large increase in pesticide use (383 million more pounds) and possible liver and kidney damage, are not listed.

Nano Coloring Book

Benzene Nanogears to color (Source: NanoSonic)In "nanoscale," one nanometer equals one-thousandth of a micrometer or one-millionth of a millimeter. Nanoparticles can occur in nature, but there is now an entire industry devoted to turning all sorts of minerals and other substances into nanoparticles that give consumer products certain properties. For instance, nanosilver has been added to dozens of consumer products for its antimicrobial qualities. Artificially produced nanoparticles are now being added to paint, cosmetics, sunscreen, vitamins, toothpaste, food colorants, and hundreds of other consumer products, without sufficient review of their safety.

But a coloring book produced by NanoSonic, a manufacturer of nanoparticles and nanomaterials, implies kids should not worry. After all, it explains, there are nanoparticles in "the smell of baking cookies." Many of the images waiting to be colored are of items found in nature, like fractals and bird feathers. These are cheek by jowl with images of nanoparticles like benzene nanogears (image at left; benzene is a known carcinogen).

Although minerals occur in nature, we've long known that overexposure to certain minerals is toxic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), high doses of copper, for instance, damage liver and kidneys and can lead to death even though copper in tiny amounts is a micronutrient essential to human health. "Nano," of course, refers to the size of the particles, not the size of the dose or exposure.

According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), "Despite already being commercially available, nanomaterials in sunscreens, cosmetics, foods and food contact substances are unlabeled and largely untested for their human health effects. Existing research raises red flags, indicating that nanomaterials have the ability to enter the bloodstream through contact with the skin, ingestion and inhalation, as well as move in the natural environment once discarded."

Some scientists are concerned that certain nanoparticles may be particularly hazardous to children. Many sunscreens, for example, contain nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which are potentially harmful in their nanoform.

For some products like spray-on sunscreen, nanoparticles make the sunscreen more easy to apply. Scientists like Dr. Philip Moos of the University of Utah's Nano Institute is worried that children might actually ingest this nano-sized zinc oxide, particularly from these spray-on sunscreens that carry warnings about "excessive inhalation." Dr. Robert Schiestl of the University of California Los Angeles found in a 2009 study that titanium dioxide nanoparticles cause systemic genetic damage in mice and increase the risk of cancer and concluded, "I believe the toxicity of these nanoparticles has not been studied enough."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no immediate plans to review evidence of ingredient toxicity, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Sludge Workbook

Growing Plants in Sludge (Source: King County Wastewater Treatment Division)The "biosolids" workbook published by the "Biosolids Program" of Kings County in Washington State (the Seattle area) suggests that kids try growing sunflower or marigold seeds in composted sewage sludge as well as in different kinds of soil to see which grow best.

Toxic sewage sludge is the material left behind after human and industrial waste is processed at wastewater treatment plants to clean and separate the water. The workbook activity doesn't suggest using gloves or any protective gear, even though some of the toxic contaminants found in virtually every sewage sludge sample tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 include 27 heavy metals, four volatile organic compounds, dozens of pharmaceuticals, several steroids and hormones, and multiple kinds of highly toxic flame retardants.

The workbook talks about the supposed benefits of treated sewage sludge -- "biosolids contain all the essential nutrients that plants need for healthy growth[,] . . . are rich in nutrients and organic matter, and are used as a soil amendment to improve soil and fertilize plants" -- without mentioning any of the toxic contaminants listed above. These toxics are especially hazardous to children and pregnant women. A follow-up article to the influential Chicago Tribune series on flame retardants, for example, exposed that small doses -- "no more than 3 milligrams per kilogram of weight per day" -- of the flame retardant "Firemaster 550," promoted as safe by industry and government officials, "can trigger obesity, anxiety, and developmental problems."

Toxic sludge also commonly contains endocrine disruptors, phthalates, industrial solvents, resistant pathogens, and perfluorinated compounds, which can bioaccumulate in soil, plants, and animals. All good reasons not to have kids planting seeds in it. The workbook reads like a follow-up to the "sludge puppet" on which the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) previously reported, also made to educate kids about the joys of sludge.

Kids' Propaganda

As CMD's PRWatch has reported, industries and their front groups "target . . . America's teachers and, ultimately, our children . . . trying to justify everything from deforestation to extinction of species . . . . Surreptitious public relations campaigns and deceptive advertising are battling today for the hearts and minds of our children." John Borowski, an environmental science teacher, reported that teachers at the 2000 National Science Teachers Convention were "quickly filling their bags with curricula as corrosive as the pesticides that the Farm Bureau promotes."

Twelve years haven't changed the way spinmeisters operate. Corporate propaganda like this is distributed online, handed out at conferences and fairs where these corporations, agencies, and their front groups exhibit, as well as at teachers' conventions like Borowski describes.

Rebekah Wilce is a farmer with a degree in writing from the University of Arizona. She researches and reports for CMD and milks cows at a local farm. She is the lead writer for CMD's

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/22-8

PILLOW TALK MICHELLE TO HUBBY: 90% OF THE USA WANT GMO'S LABELED -REMEMBER?

Organic Consumers Association Petitions Michelle Obama to Pressure President Obama to Honor Campaign Promise to Label GMOs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 24, 2012
8:26 AM

CONTACT: Organic Consumers Association

Katherine Paul, 207.653.3090, katherine@organicconsumers.org

WASHINGTON - August 24 - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today launched a national petition on SignOn.org asking Michelle Obama to pressure President Obama to honor his 2007 campaign promise to support the labeling of genetically modified foods. The petition also asks President Obama to endorse California’s Proposition 37, a Nov. 6 citizens’ ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food ingredients.
“Michelle Obama is a champion of better nutrition in school lunches and of ending childhood obesity,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the OCA. “We believe that if she is truly serious about children’s health issues, she will support labeling of genetically engineered foods. We urge her to put pressure on the President to honor his campaign promise to support GMO labeling and to officially endorse Prop 37.”
In 2007, candidate Obama, made this statement to a crowd of voters in Iowa: ‘We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.”
National polls indicate that more than 90% of Americans want GMOs labeled. And yet, President Obama has continued to green light a flood of new GMOs, including genetically engineered alfalfa, salmon, and 2,4 D “Agent Orange” corn. He has not publicly supported any of the state or national efforts to require mandatory GMO labeling, despite his campaign promise.
The FDA does no pre-market safety testing on genetically engineered foods, instead relying on the word of Monsanto, Dupont and other biotech companies that these foods are safe. However, a growing number of studies link genetically modified foods to a host of health issues, including obesity and allergies. Even the American Medical Association has recently warned that GMO foods need to be safety-tested before they are placed on the market.
“Nearly 80% of all non-organic processed foods in the U.S. contain GMOs,” Cummins said. “Without labeling, it is very difficult to keep these foods out of our – and our kids’ – diets. Worse yet, as long as consumers don’t know when they are eating genetically engineered foods, they can’t trace health issues, such as allergies, to the genetically engineered ingredients in their food.”
In a visit to an elementary school in January, in Alexandria, Va., Mrs. Obama said: “We have a right to expect the food (our kids) get at school is the same kind of food we want to serve at our own kitchen tables.”
“We encourage everyone who believes in the right to know what’s in their food, to sign this petition today,” Cummins said. “If Mrs. Obama hears from hundreds of thousands of voters on this issue, we hope she’ll be able to persuade the President to do the right thing, and keep his word.”
If Prop 37 passes in November, California will become the first state in the country to require what nearly 50 other nations in the world already require: labels on genetically engineered foods.

###

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability and other key topics. We are the only organization in the US focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million organic and socially responsible consumers.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/08/24

AGROCHEMICALS KILL - SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

Argentina to Maintain Use of Agrochemicals

Published on Friday, August 24, 2012 by Al Jazeera blogs

by Teresa Bo

Susana Marquez couldn't stop crying when she heard the sentence in the courtroom in Cordoba. She was hoping that the men accused of spraying the town of Ituzaingo with agrochemicals would serve a prison sentence. But that did not happen.

Two of them were found guilty of environmental contamination and sentenced to three years probation… The third one was acquitted of all charges.

"Nobody went to jail. This trial shows that in this country there is only justice for the rich, for farmers. Nobody cares for the poor", said Maria Godoy who lives in Ituzaingo, not far away from the provincial capital.

'They are murderers'

Susana Marquez has had 15 miscarriages and of the two children she was able to deliver both were born with heart defects. Only one of them is still alive. Lourdes is seven years old and blood tests show high levels of agrochemicals in her system. Susana blames two ranch owners and a pilot who are currently on trial for spraying her town with pesticides and herbicides.

"They are murderers how they sprayed the area indiscriminately. This is no coincidence. I lost 16 babies because [of] those beasts. And I live in fear because my daughter is sick, we have no money to pay for the surgery she needs", she told me.

It all started when the newborn baby of Sofia Gatica, one of the mothers, died of kidney failure in the same town in 1999. That's when women in this poor town started to gather information about what was going on. They realised that cancer rates in their town where at 40 per cent higher than in other parts of the country. A study carried out in 2010 showed that 80 per cent of the tested children here had agrochemicals in their blood.

The ranch that was fumigated by land and air is one street away from many of the houses where people later on got sick.

Argentina is the world's third-largest soybean exporter and its economy has become highly dependent on it... Much of that soybean is grown in Cordoba where farmers use large quantities of agrochemicals like the glyphosate.

Those behind the lawsuits hoped the trial would put industry standards on the stand as well. But Government officials say there is no need for any major policy changes. "I don't think that Argentina's productive system has to be transformed. What they have to do is respect the thousand or fifteen hundred meters imposed when there are people living in the area," said Argentina's Human Rights Secretary, Andres Fresneda.

In spite of the anger and disappointment in the courtroom, lawyers insist that the trial was a milestone. "This is important because it has proved that some types of fumigation are a crime. This means that from now it won't be a mistake if somebody sprays a town and people will know that they can go to jail," said one of the victim's lawyers. He says that the trial will set a precedent as it's the first time that somebody is sentenced to prison for spraying in a banned area.

Scientists had hoped the sentence will set an example in Latin America. "Multinational companies have the complicity of the state but there is no doubt about the damages involved for human health of some types of pesticides. We hope that the sentence of the trial will set a precedent about the consequences of large scale farming", said Andres Carrasco from the Molecular Embryology Laboratory of the University of Buenos Aires School of Medicine. His studies published in the magazine "Chemical Research in Toxicology" have shown the damage caused by glyphosate in amphibian embryos even in smaller amounts than those used in agriculture.

But the lawyers of those accused insist the illnesses of Ituzaingo are not only related to agrochemicals. They also claimed they could also be the consequence of arsenic found in the water and electrical transformers that used to be placed in the town.

"This trial has been filled with ideologies between those who are against large scale farming and those who are not. The mistake is to put on the trial of three people what should be a national debate about agrochemicals and then reconsider Argentina's economic model. Those accused where using approved agrochemicals", said Sebastian Becerra, one of the defence lawyers.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/24-5

FDA: CHINA'S POISON PET FOOD IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICANS

Kucinich Asks Inspector General to Review FDA’s Bungling of “Death Treats”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 24, 2012
3:42 PM

CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Nathan White (202)225-5871

Five Year Investigation, Thousands of Sick and Dead Dogs, Tainted Jerky Still on the Shelves – FDA Refuses to Exercise Authority

WASHINGTON - August 24 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today asked the Inspector General to review the Food and Drug Administration’s handling of an investigation of tainted jerky treats for dogs made in China. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been investigating consumer complaints for five years while the death toll rises. The FDA has issued three low profile warnings, unbeknownst to the vast majority of dog owners. Dangerous products are still on the shelves and sold in markets across the country.

See a signed copy of the letter here.

In April of this year, after meeting with Congressman Kucinich, the FDA sent investigators to the manufacturing plants in China where the jerky is produced. The FDA was not allowed to fully investigate the factories and was denied the ability to take samples. In response, the FDA buried the inspection reports on their website after a four month delay without explanation and with little context.

“The FDA has the legal authority to ban these imports, but they have abdicated their responsibility,” said Kucinich.

In another discreet update to the FDA website, the FDA uploaded a list of complaints of illnesses and deaths registered by pet owners and veterinarians. The document includes detailed stories that should be essential reading for any pet owner.

“The Chinese manufactures won’t test the raw materials they use. They won’t allow samples to be tested in the United States and they even deny receiving consumer complaints. It’s absurd and it is unacceptable.

“What in the world is going on at the FDA when over 2000 incidents of poisoning by an unknown substance and stonewalling by Chinese manufacturers does not result in a product recall or import ban? We know two things. There are sick or dead dogs and the FDA is either sick or dead. Have we reached the point where the FDA can’t be trusted to protect the public interest?” said Kucinich.

“The FDA has also defended its failure to act by claiming it cannot act on complaints alone. If, after five years of investigating, the FDA still has no more clues about the chemical or biological culprit than the original consumer complaints, the competency and/or integrity of the investigation is called into question. I do not make this statement lightly,” wrote Kucinich in the letter to the Inspector General.

###

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/08/24-5

END FACTORY AGRIBIZ - STAND FOR REAL FOOD NOW

A Critical Mass for Real Food

The old logic of the slave plantation is still the logic of our industrial food system, 500 years in the making. There’s a new way of thinking taking off.

by Anim Steel

Published on Friday, August 24, 2012 by YES! Magazine

(photo: Harsha KR. / Flickr)

Imagine that you are in room. It’s about 30 by 30 feet. The floor is stone, and the walls and ceiling are a mix of stone and cement. They are a little damp, which you can smell but you can’t quite see. It’s pitch black except for the light that comes in from a low, arched doorway in whose frame is silhouetted an iron gate. When your eyes adjust to the darkness, you can see a narrow stretch of beach and the blue and gray of the ocean beyond.

This, a doorway in West Africa's Elmina Fort, is a Door of No Return. It is the last part of Africa you would touch if you were a slave being led from the dungeon to a waiting ship.

I stood in front of this door a few years ago while visiting my family in Ghana. It is a place of sorrow and suffering. Countless human beings passed by this spot on their way to either a wretched death at sea or a life of bondage in the New World. They had been snatched up near their villages in slave raids; ripped from their families and everything they knew; shackled to others by the neck for a long march to coast; and thrown in a crowded, reeking dungeon for what might have been months until the next ship arrived. That was just the start of the journey.

This door represents many things. As human beings, it represents our capacity for cruelty—as well as resilience. Many of the descendants of those who went through it not only survived, but went on to build the "New World" itself. They paved the way for every opportunity I have had in the United States, and I believe their story makes us all stronger.

But this door also represents a beginning—the beginning of our modern food system.

If, back in the 18th century, you could see all the way across the Atlantic, you would find an unbroken line of plantations that stretched from Buenos Aires to Baltimore. Down this entire line, slaves harvested sugar for British tea, rice for the West Indian consumption, and cotton for the textile mills of New England. These were vast monocrops that broke the body and ruined the soil—but made money for planters and big companies that traded the goods.

Here, you see the logic of the modern industrial food system in its rawest form—a logic of prioritizing profit over human and environmental welfare. A lot has changed in the 400 years since the Elmina Fort was built, but this principle has not gone away. The logic of the plantation is the logic of today’s industrial food system.

In this system, it is in the interest of the middleman—large companies that dominate the processing and distribution of food—to squeeze farmers and externalize costs. The industrial model may work for some things, but it's time to admit that it doesn’t work for food. It doesn’t work for Lucas, a tomato-picker in Florida, who toils from dawn to dusk without protection or health care and still cannot escape poverty. It’s not good for the farmers in Illinois who have nearly been bullied out of existence by Monsanto. It's not good for teenagers in Brooklyn who, when asked how many of them have diabetes or know someone with diabetes, raise every hand in the room. And it’s certainly not good for the 99 percent of us who are left holding the bag of rising health care costs.

It doesn’t work for anyone who wants—and needs—real food: food that nourishes the earth, communities, and individuals, both eaters and producers.

If the logic of the industrial system is based on profit, the logic of real food is founded on respect and balance. Real food isn't opposed to profit, but it is opposed to profits that aren't shared fairly with those who work the hardest to feed us. The Door of No Return represents what’s we’re up against: a global industrial food economy 500 years in the making that exploits both people and land.

But there is also a second door: a wooden door on a busy London street below a hand-painted sign that reads “print shop.” You’d probably miss it if you were just passing by. If you were standing outside of it in one morning in 1787, you might have seen 12 men, mostly Quakers, go inside for a meeting. That meeting sparked the beginning of the British Anti-Slavery Society, and the very first citizens' campaign of its kind. Its members ran petitions, lobbied parliament, and staged book tours, pioneering many of the social movement tactics we still use today. When those men walked through that door, the whole world economy was built on slave labor.

In 10 years, this group of 12 swelled to hundreds of thousands. And in just a few decades, it did the unthinkable: It ended the slave trade throughout the British Empire.

To imagine a world without slavery then would be like imagining a world without oil today—and who would be crazy enough to propose that?

And yet in one generation, it came to pass. Those activists had no knowledge of the future, but they did have their conviction of what was right and what was wrong.

This second door represents something that could be cliché if it weren’t demonstrably, factually true: that a small group of committed people can, in fact, change the world.

This is the spirit that sparked the Real Food Challenge: a project that re-imagines a cafeteria tray as a tool for social change. It's just one face of a larger movement that is pressing for a just and sustainable food economy.

In 2006, I started to meet college students who were active on their campuses. They were pushing for local food and asking for fair trade coffee and organic produce. A group of us from all around the country, from Brown University to UC Santa Cruz, started talking and realized that we might accomplish more if we joined forces.

We realized that colleges and universities in this country spend over $5 billion each year to feed their students. What if we could shift how that money was being spent? Instead of lining the pockets of the biggest and worst food companies, why not support smaller farms and socially responsible business? Why not invest in a real food economy?

We thought that shift might actually be possible because students are paying customers of their schools. But it would depend on strong leadership from students themselves.

A Real Food Commitment

Alex Sligar grew up in rural Washington State. When he was a kid, his father lost his farm and ended up working in a nearby feedlot. Alex’s brothers both went into the military and served bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Alex was on the same track until he got inspired to serve his country in a different way—by joining the food movement. As a junior at Eastern Washington University, he started a campaign to buy more regional food for his campus so that hard-working people, like his dad, could continue to work the land with dignity.

Alex was joined by another student named Mohamud Omar. Mohamud came from Somalia and had never considered himself an activist. But now, while famine ravaged his home country and his family faced obstacles to health and food access in the United States, Mohamud came to recognize food access as "the most important issue in my life right now.”

Together, Alex and Mohamud and their teammates have called for transparency in purchasing at their university, and have gained access to the cafeteria’s records. Now they are urging the president to sign a "Real Food Commitment" that would dedicate at least 20 percent of the school's food budget to local, organic, and fair trade purchases.

In three years, the Real Food Challenge has built a network of 5,000 students like Alex and Mohamud at more than 350 schools. Students supported by the Real Food Challenge have won $45 million of real food purchasing commitments—including a commitment by the entire University of California system. We’re estimating that in 10 years, $45 million could become $1 billion of real food commitments—and that we could set a precedent for other kinds of institutions.

It’s about more than dollars. It’s about the change that is happening on the ground. It’s about Alan, an apple farmer in Rhode Island who got a contract from Brown University. He was able to stay in business and is now selling apples to elementary schools as well. It’s about Eliza, a hog farmer in North Carolina, which is ground zero for factory-farmed pigs. Unlike the factory farms around her, where the animals are confined in tight cages over lagoons of their own excrement, Eliza's pigs run free on their pasture. Students at UNC got the school to start buying her pork. She’s now selling to five other institutions in the area. Eliza and Alan and farmers like them are the backbone of the real food economy to come.

This may be one of the fastest ways to catalyze change in the food system. Using existing budgets, we can strike at multiple roots of the problem. Where demand is fragmented, we can organize it. Where there is too little clarity, we can create transparency and accountability. Where policy is stalled, we can foster new leadership.

It’s a different kind of activism. Instead of voting with one dollar, we’re voting with a billion. Instead of a boycott, we’re mounting a “pro-cott,” strategically investing in the kind of food system that will advance social, economic, and environmental justice.

If we succeed, we will see a profound transformation in the way our food is produced and consumed. Vacant lots will become vibrant gardens. Family farms and food traditions will thrive. Hard work will be fairly rewarded. Our climate and planet will sustain us. All people will have access to food that is nourishing.

I think food is an incredible thing. I can’t think of anything else that connects us more intimately to each other and the earth, not to mention our health and our heritage.

Archimedes said : Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I can move the world. Real food is that lever. Let’s take a stand.

This article was adapted from a speech delivered to the 2011 Bioneers conference.

Anim Steel is director of national programs and co-founder of The Food Project (TFP). Prior to his work with TFP, Anim was a consultant with Economic Development Assistance Consortium. He was a 1997 Coro Fellow in Public Affairs, is 2010 Hunt Prime Movers Fellow, and was recently selected for an Echoing Green Social Entrepreneurship.
SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/24-0

A HELL OF A LOT OF DOUGH TO KEEP FRANKENFOOD IN THE DARK

By Twilight Greenaway

17 Aug 2012 9:12 AM

Photos by Hugo Felix, Africa Studio / Shutterstock.

As the battle to get genetically engineered foods (or GMOs) labeled in California — a battle that could very well have an impact on labeling nationwide — heats up, Big Food and Big Ag are working in concert to push back to the tune of $25 million. The fight centers around Proposition 37, the ballot initiative from the Right to Know Campaign that will go to vote in November.

If it passes, the result would be no small change. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott wrote recently:

Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives that suffuse the US food system, the initiative would require the labeling of something like 80 percent of all non-organic processed food sold in supermarkets.

As you can see in the chart below, The “Big 6” pesticide makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) are putting up big money — especially Monsanto and Dupont (full name E. I. Dupont de Nemours). That’s because all of the Big 6 either produce GMO seeds themselves, or pesticides that work in concert with the seeds, so they have the biggest vested interest in seeing GMO proliferation fly under the radar of most Americans.

The names behind processed foods are also getting in on the fight — like PepsiCo, whose many sub-brands sell many foods and beverages that contain GMO high-fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, etc. So are the companies behind quite a few “health food brands” — from Kashi to Gardenburger to Silk. In fact, the Cornucopia Institute just released a handy shopping guide to help eaters keep their dollars from going to help oppose Prop 37.

Where is the money going, exactly? Many of these companies are paying the same consultants who worked for the tobacco industry to create “astroturf,” or fake grassroots groups that will do their best to make it look like there’s a big crowd of citizens who think labeling is a bad idea. And they’ll undoubtedly convince many voters. This Reuters article that ran yesterday predicts a close battle.

Here’s a breakdown of the 20 largest donors as of Wednesday, Aug. 15:

Chart of funding for anti-GMO labeling campaign

Data source.

BIG AG'S MULTI-MILLIONS DOLLAR LIES - TO DUMB YOU DOWN(ER)

Monsanto doesn't want you to know it has tinkered with your food. (photo: Food Watch)

Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto on GMO Labeling in California

By Michele Simon, Reader Supported News

23 August 12

he battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills.

Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called "Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal," in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).

Even for a corporation not exactly known for its honesty and transparency, this brief webpage is riddled with deception and outright falsehoods about the initiative and its proponents. Here are the 10 most blatant examples:

1) The law "would require a warning label on food products."

No warning label would be required. Rather, the words "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering" would be required on the back of the package -- similar to what is now required for ingredient or allergen labeling. For whole foods, like the sweet corn coming soon to a Walmart near you, a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words "genetically engineered." The aim is simply to offer consumers additional information about the contents of the foods they purchase.

2) "The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established."

Unfortunately, no long-term studies exist on either the safety or benefits of GMO ingredients, so Monsanto has no basis for making such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety studies of genetically engineered foods. Meanwhile, some independent studies raise questions about links to allergies and other potential health risks.

3) "The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods."

This statement, while true, is taken out of context and is misleading because the AMA also (for the first time) called for mandatory premarket safety studies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA's announcement, labeling and testing logically go together:

The AMA's stance on mandatory labeling isn't consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.

4) Food companies "have had the choice" to use GM ingredients.

Choice is a good thing; however, consumers have never had the choice. Prop 37 will give consumers a long-overdue choice about eating genetically engineered food.

5) "FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers."

Of course FDA refuses to require GMO labeling, thanks to Monsanto's arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food Democracy Now's Dave Murphy explained the FDA decision in May upon its 20-year anniversary, which came as a result of a broader deregulatory push by the first Bush administration:

Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations."

Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.

Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."

Call they did. It's typical for corporations to get their policy agenda approved through back-channel lobbying and revolving door appointments and then point to the magical policy outcome as evidence of scientific decision-making.

6) "Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails."

There is no basis in logic that consumers could be denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actually broadens the meaningful food choices available through greater transparency. Right now, people are eating in the dark.

7) "Interestingly, the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation's food supply."

In fact, quite a large number of food producers, farmers and others very much "engaged in the production of our nation's food supply" support the campaign. (See the growing list of endorsements.) Speaking of "special interest groups" wouldn't that label apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the industrial food producers who oppose Proposition 37?

8) "Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production."

"Modern food production" -- is that Monsanto's latest euphemism for scientifically altering the genetic code of the food supply? In truth, nothing is hidden "beneath" the Right to Know campaign, that's all it's about. But because Monsanto has no good argument for why consumers don't have the right to know how their food is produced, it has to resort to distracting deceptions.

9) "[Proponents] opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations."

Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorsements reveal that Monsanto and friends are actually out of step with leading health associations, such as:

American Public Health Association
American Medical Students Association
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Physicians for Social Responsibility, California chapters
California Nurses Association

10) "The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers."

Again, logic defies this talking point, especially since all polling indicates a "majority of consumers" want GMO food to be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the proposition winning by a 3-to-1 margin. No wonder Monsanto has to resort to such nonsensical talking points.

Source: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13079-top-10-lies-told-by-monsanto-on-gmo-labeling-in-california

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

IS IT REALLY ORGANIC? SHOPPING GUIDE LIST - CARAGEENAN IN ORGANICS - HERE

Shopping Guide to Avoiding Organic Foods with Carrageenan

If you suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms that improved or disappeared after cutting carrageenan from your diet, fill out a questionnaire to help us and medical researchers better understand the effects of carrageenan on public health.

Always check ingredient lists carefully, and note that ingredients are not required by law to be listed on alcoholic beverages, which may contain carrageenan. In fact, carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer but is not listed on the label.

If you come across organic products and/or brands utilizing Carrageenan that are not yet listed, please forward specific information to us by emailing cultivate@cornucopia.org

Organic Dairy

Buttermilk with Carrageenan	Buttermilk without Carrageenan
Natural By Nature	Clover Stornetta Friendship Brand Kalona Supernatural Organic Valley
Chocolate Milk With Carrageenan	Chocolate Milk without Carrageenan
Clover Stornetta Horizon Kalona Supernatural (Kalona has committed to removing carrageenan, and will be carrageenan-free by the end of 2012. Check ingredients list) Natural By Nature Organic Valley Publix Simply Smart	Castle Rock Organic Farms Crystal Ball Farms Strafford Organic Creamery Trickling Springs Creamery
Cottage Cheese with Carrageenan	Cottage Cheese without Carrageenan
365 Whole Foods (lowfat and fat free) Clover Stornetta Friendship Brand Horizon (regular and lowfat) Publix Trader Joe’s	Kalona Supernatural (regular and lowfat) Nancy’s Organic Valley (regular and lowfat)
Cream with Carrageenan	Cream without Carrageenan
Clover Stornetta (whipped cream in a can) Horizon Natural by Nature (whipped cream in a can) Organic Valley (Ultra Pasteurized) Publix	Butterworks Farm Cedar Summit Farm Clover Stornetta Kalona Supernatural Natural By Nature (heavy cream) Organic Valley (Pasteurized) Strauss Family Creamery Trickling Springs Creamery
Eggnog with Carrageenan	Eggnog without Carrageenan
Clover Stornetta Organic Valley (Organic Valley has committed to removing carrageenan from its eggnog by the end of 2012)	Kalona Supernatural Strauss Family Creamery
Ice Cream with Carrageenan	Ice Cream without Carrageenan
Julie’s (mint fudge, mocha fudge and peanut butter fudge flavors only)	Alden’s Ben and Jerry’s Organic Castle Rock Organic Farms Crystal Ball Farms Green and Black’s Organic Julie’s (all flavors except mint fudge, mocha java and peanut butter fudge) Publix Stonyfield Strafford Organic Creamery Strauss Family Creamery Three Twins
Kefir with Carrageenan	Kefir without Carrageenan
(No organic kefir found with carrageenan – carrageenan is sometimes used in conventional kefir)	Butterworks Farm Cedar Summit (pourable yogurt) Fresh Made Helios Lifeway Nancy’s Organic Pastures Organic Valley (pourable yogurt)
Shelf-Stable Milk with Carrageenan (“milk boxes”)	Shelf-Stable Milk without Carrageenan (“milk boxes”)
Horizon (chocolate, vanilla and strawberry flavors) Organic Valley (chocolate flavored) President’s Choice	Horizon (lowfat) Organic Valley (regular, lowfat, strawberry flavored, vanilla)
Sour Cream with Carrageenan	Sour Cream without Carrageenan
Horizon (lowfat) Natural By Nature Publix	365 Whole Foods Clover Stornetta Friendship Brand Horizon (regular only) Kalona Supernatural Organic Valley (regular and lowfat) Nancy’s Strauss Family Creamery Wallaby Organic
Yogurt with Carrageenan	Yogurt without Carrageenan
Stonyfield (Oikos – caramel flavor only, Squeezers – all flavors) Horizon (Tuberz™)	Butterworks Cedar Summit (pourable) Crystal Balls Farm Hails Family Farm Hawthorne Valley Farm Horizon (all except Tuberz™) Kalona Supernatural Nancy’s Organic Valley (pourable) Redwood Hill Farms Seven Stars Stonyfield (all except caramel Oikos and Squeezers) Straus Family Creamery Wallaby Organic

Dairy Alternative – many of these popular brands are “natural” (conventional) and therefore not organic

Almond Milk with Carrageenan	Almond Milk without Carrageenan
Almond Breeze (Blue Diamond) Pacific Foods So Delicious Trader Joe’s (aseptic)	365 Whole Foods Almond Dream Natura (8 flavors) OMilk NYC Silk PureAlmond (including chocolate-flavored) Westsoy Trader Joe’s (refrigerated)
Chocolate Soymilk with Carrageenan	Chocolate Soymilk without Carrageenan
365 Whole Foods Eden Foods (Eden Foods has committed to removing carrageenan from all its products. Check ingredients list) Good Karma Organic Valley Nature’s Promise Silk Soy Dream Soy Slender Trader Joe’s Westsoy	Tofu Shop Silk (in single-serve, shelf-stable packaging)
Coconut Milk/Water with Carrageenan	Coconut Milk/Water without Carrageenan
Almond Breeze Coconut Blend (Blue Diamond) Coconut Dream Lakewood (juice) Silk Pure Coconut So Delicious Trader Joe’s Zico (chocolate flavored)	Amy and Brian (juice) Blue Monkey Coco Libre Knudsen’s (coconut nectar) Naked Juice (coconut water) Native Forest Roland Coconut Thai Kitchen Tropical Traditions (cream) Yoga Earth Purity (powder beverage)
Flax Milk with Carrageenan	Flax Milk without Carrageenan
365 Whole Foods Good Karma
Frozen Dessert (non-dairy) with Carrageenan	Frozen Dessert (non-dairy) without Carrageenan
Almond Dream Good Karma Purely Decadent Rice Dream So Delicious Soy Dream Tempt (Living Harvest)	365 Whole Foods Julie’s Lifeway Luna and Larry’s Nadamoo Natural Choice Fruit Bars Organic Nectars Sambazon
Hazelnut Milk with Carrageenan	Hazelnut Milk without Carrageenan
Pacific Foods
Hemp Milk with Carrageenan	Hemp Milk without Carrageenan
Tempt (Living Harvest) Pacific Foods
Oat Milk with Carrageenan	Oat Milk without Carrageenan
Pacific Foods	Simpli
Rice Milk with Carrageenan	Rice Milk without Carrageenan
365 Whole Foods Good Karma Pacific Foods Rice Dream (Unsweetened) Ryza Westsoy	B.R.A.T. (all flavors) Nature’s Promise Rice Dream (Original) Trader Joe’s
Soy Creamer with Carrageenan	Soy Creamer without Carrageenan
Silk Trader Joe’s Wildwood	Organic Valley
Soymilk with Carrageenan	Soymilk without Carrageenan
365 Whole Foods 8th Continent Earth Balance Great Value (Walmart) Nature’s Promise O Organics – Safeway (refrigerated original and vanilla) Organic Valley Pearl Soymilk (Kikkoman) Pacific Foods Publix Silk Soy Dream Soy Slender Sunrich Trader Joe’s Vermont Soy Vitasoy Wegman’s Westsoy (Organic Plus, Nonfat) Wildwood ZenSoy	Eden Soy (Eden Foods has committed to removing carrageenan from all its products. Currently, most soymilk is already carrageenan-free, but EdenBlend and chocolate flavored soymilk still contains carrageenan. Check ingredients list) Westsoy (original, unsweetened, lowfat)
Soynog with Carrageenan	Soynog without Carrageenan
Earth Balance
Sunflower Milk with Carrageenan	Sunflower Milk without Carrageenan
Sunrich Naturals Sunsational Sol

Organic Nutritional Drinks

Nutritional Drinks with Carrageenan	Nutritional Drinks without Carrageenan
Orgain	B.R.A.T. PediaSmart

Organic Deli Meat

Deli Meat with Carrageenan	Deli Meat without Carrageenan
Applegate (Packaged and Sliced: Roasted Chicken, Turkey Breast, Roasted Turkey Breast, Smoked Chicken, Smoked Turkey Breast)	Applegate (Roast Beef, Genoa Salami, Uncured Ham)

Organic Dips

Dips with Carrageenan	Dips without Carrageenan
Natural By Nature (French Onion Dip)	Marzetti’s Organic Ranch Veggie Dip Simply Organic Dip Mixes

Organic Juice

Juice with Carrageenan	Juice without Carrageenan
Knudsen’s (Yumberry) Lakewood (Acai Amazon Berry and Coconut)	Apple and Eve Columbia Gorge Honest Kids Knudsen’s (all flavors except Yumberry) Lakewood (all flavors except Acai Amazon Berry and Coconut) Organic Valley Publix Santa Cruz Uncle Matt’s

Organic Prepared Foods

Pizza with Carrageenan	Pizza without Carrageenan
Annie’s Organic Frozen Pizza	365 Whole Foods Amy’s (70% organic) Publix Rising Moon Organics (70% organic) Trader Joe’s

AVOID: Conventional/“Natural” Foods with Carrageenan

Below is a partial list of conventional products containing carrageenan. This list is not comprehensive, but provides examples of categories of foods where you may not expect to find carrageenan, like nutrition bars (Balance Bars), chocolate bars (Enjoy Life), and chicken strips (Butterball and Hormel).

Always check ingredients lists carefully when purchasing foods – some of the brands listed below carry products with and without carrageenan (for example, Kraft Philadelphia fat free cream cheese contains carrageenan, whereas Kraft Philadelphia regular cream cheese is carrageenan-free).

Chocolate Bars

Enjoy Life ChocoBoom™ Ricemilk and Ricemilk Crunch

Chocolate milk/powder

Carnation Breakfast Essentials
Garelick TruMoo™
Cold Stone Creamery
Nestle Nesquik
Ovaltine
Stop ‘n Shop

Coffee Creamer and Half and Half

Friendly Farms
Great Value (Walmart)
Hood Fat Free
International Delight
Nestle Coffeemate (“Natural Bliss” is carrageenan-free)

Conventional Nutrition Drinks

Carnation Breakfast Essentials
Nestle Boost
Pure Protein Shake
Slim Fast

Dairy (cottage cheese, sour cream, ricotta cheese, yogurt, etc.)

Dragone (ricotta cheese)
Garelick (cream)
Great Value (Walmart)
Kemps (sour cream and cottage cheese)
Kraft (cottage cheeses and Philadelphis fat free cream cheese)
Land O’ Lakes (sour cream and cottage cheese)
Mid-America Farms
Old Home Foods (sour cream)
Westby (sour cream, yogurt, etc.)

Dairy Alternatives

FlaxUSA Flaxmilk (all flavors – available at Walmart)
So Delicious
Tofutti (all products)
Soy Dream frozen desserts

Desserts

Kozy Shack

Dips

Deans
Marzetti’s Otria Greek Yogurt Veggie Dips (all flavors)
Marzetti’s Veggie Dips (all flavors)
Shullsburg Creamery

Ice Cream

Ben and Jerry’s
Coldstone Creamery
LaLoo’s goat milk ice cream

Iced Coffee

International Delight

Infant Formula

Currently all ready-to-drink (liquid) infant formula, except Gerber Good Start, contains carrageenan. Avoid carrageenan in infant formula by buying organic powdered formula.

Meat

Butterball (chicken breast strips)
Hormel (Natural Choice carved chicken breast)
Oscar Meyer (Deli-Fresh)
Oscar Meyer (Selects – turkey breast slow roasted)

Nutrition Bars

Balance Bars

Prepared Foods

Gerber Graduates kids’ meals (ravioli)
Healthy Choice

Whipping Cream

Great Value (Walmart)
Sinton’s
SOURCE: http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/

last updated on 7/18/2012

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

BOYCOTT CALLED: ON FAKE "ORGANIC" OPPONENTS TO GMO LABELING -CA PROP 37

i_want_my_organic_coke_by_koert_van_mensvoort

The Great Organic Deceivers

August 21, 2012
Source: http://www.anh-usa.org/the-great-organic-deceivers/

Which organic brands really believe in organic—and which are working behind the scenes to betray natural health consumers? It’s time for a boycott. Action Alert!
Many natural and organic brands are actually owned by huge conglomerates that don’t support sustainable, organic, non-GMO, non-toxic agriculture. In fact, their product labels are often designed to mislead consumers just so they can grab a share of the lucrative health-conscious consumer market.
Even worse, many of the conglomerate companies that produce so-called natural foods—and even some labeled “organic”—are allied with the biotech industry fighting by any means to defeat “Label GMO,” a.k.a. Prop 37, the California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative. Why are they doing such a thing? Because they sell more food that has GMO ingredients than organic food, and don’t want consumers to have a choice about the GMO. They especially don’t want consumers to know what is actually in their so-called “natural” products.
Keep in mind that the term “natural” has no legal or regulatory meaning at all: FDA has never created a definition for it and claims that “it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.” In fact, FDA even says high-fructose corn syrup is natural! “Natural” is nothing more than a marketing term, one that is in fact meaningless.
You’d think a “natural” food wouldn’t have genetically engineered ingredients, but you’d be wrong. Kashi, which everywhere proclaims its passion for “healthy, all-natural foods,” has GMO soy in its ingredients. Kashi is owned by Kellogg, the multinational food manufacturing company that produces everything from sugary cereals to Morningstar Farms vegetarian products (some of which are organic but still use GMOs) to Keebler cookies (filled with GMOs). The company has contributed $612,000 to defeat Prop 37 and keep GMO labels off their products.
Sierra Mist Natural wears that moniker proudly because their soda is “made with real sugar and 100% natural flavors”! The brand is owned by PepsiCo, which has contributed more than $1 million to defeat Prop 37.
What you may not realize is that many organic brands have been snapped up by Big Food companies; their ownership is deliberately hidden from consumers. While they purport to have an environmental and health-conscious mission, they completely undercut that claim by fighting GMO labeling. Honest Tea, for example, is USDA-certified organic. Yet Honest Tea is owned by Coca-Cola, which has also contributed more than $1 million to defeat Label GMO. We don’t think that’s very honest. Coke also owns Odwalla, which produces “all-natural juices” and “nourishing protein bars,” and supposedly supports sustainable agriculture. GMO is sustainable agriculture?
Silk carries the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on its soy milk, coconut milk, and almond milk products. Both Silk and the Horizon Organic brand tell their customers that the brands oppose GMOs. Yet both are owned by Dean Foods, which has contributed $253,000 to defeat Label GMO.
Lightlife vegan and vegetarian foods is owned by ConAgra, which contributed $520,000. Seeds of Change, the organic seed and food company, is owned by candy giant Mars, which contributed $100,242 to defeat Label GMO. General Mills, which owns Cascadian Farms Organic, Muir Glen, and Larabar, contributed $520,000. Smucker, which owns R.W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organic, contributed $387,000. The State of California has a website where you can see exactly which companies are fighting hardest to keep their GMO foods from being labeled.
What about groups like the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association), and the Organic Trade Association? Surely they’re all about protecting consumers from GMOs, right? No. Both of these organizations are funded by the very same Big Food companies that have made contributions to defeat the Label GMO initiative.
Back in 1994, Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, told the Kansas City Star, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” And that’s precisely what Big Food is so afraid of. Consumers will generally avoid GMOs if they can, and they won’t buy foods containing them. Can you imagine the consumer outrage if the labels on their favorite “natural” foods suddenly declare that their ingredients are genetically engineered?
The Cornucopia Institute has developed a shoppers’ guide to help you tell the sheep from the wolves in this battle.
In 2008, the global organic industry generated $52 billion. Organic foods account for 2.6% of the US food market, and it’s growing at a rate of nearly 20% each year. Money talks. Tell the parent companies of these brands of “natural” and organic foods—companies that oppose your right to know what’s in your food—that if they want your business, they can’t sell out organic values. We join with other friends in calling for a global boycott. We would suggest boycotting the following brands:

Alexia Foods
Bear Naked
Cascadian Farm Organics
French Meadow Organic Bakery
Gardenburger
Honest Tea
Horizon Organic
Izze Sparkling Juice
Kashi
Larabar
Lightlife
MorningStar Farms
Muir Glen Organics
Naked Juice
Odwalla
R.W. Knudsen
Santa Cruz Organic
Sierra Mist Natural
Silk

Instead, buy the following brands that have donated in support of Label GMO:

Amy’s
Baby’s Only Organic
Dr. Bronner’s
Eden
Lundberg
Nature’s Path Organic
Nutiva
Organic Valley
Straus Organic
Uncle Matt’s

Right now, please sign our warning message to the “natural food” companies trying to stop you from knowing what products contain GMO.

And also sign our letter of thanks to those companies which are supporting the initiative.

Clean Food Earth