LOOK WHICH FAST FOOD WILL LABEL GMOs - MUY FÁCIL!

Chipotle Is The First U.S. Fast Food Chain To Identify Products With GMO Ingredients

By Mary Beth Quirk June 19, 2013

(Stirwise)

Sure, you probably know the basic ingredients in your fast food lunch — chicken or beef, lettuce and tomato, whathaveyou — after all, you’re the one who ordered it. But if you, like many consumers, care whether or not those ingredients include genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the ingredient list usually is no help. Chipotle announced that it will now mark those ingredients on its website for discerning consumers.
NaturalNews says that with this new effort, Chipotle is the first U.S. fast food chain to label GMOs in its food, even if only on the web site and not on menus in stores. The pink “G” stands for GMOs on each of its ingredients, along with the other keys for “Local” food or “Responsibly raised meats.”
While there’s still a lot of debate over whether or not its unhealthy to grow and consume GMOs, environmental and consumer advocates have been pushing for change in how such information is presented to consumers.
It’s worth noting, as Businessweek points out, that although Chipotle implemented this system back in March, no one has really noticed or paid attention until now. And that’s just the first step, says Chipotle:
“Our goal is to eliminate GMOs from Chipotle’s ingredients, and we’re working hard to meet this challenge,” the company explains. “For example, we recently switched our fryers from soybean oil to sunflower oil. Soybean oil is almost always made from genetically modified soybeans, while there is no commercially available GMO sunflower oil. Where our food contains currently unavoidable GM ingredients, it is only in the form of corn or soy.”
The Genetically Modified Burrito: Chipotle Tells All [BusinessWeek] Chipotle becomes first US restaurant chain to voluntarily label GMOs [NaturalNews]
http://www.naturalnews.com/040751_Chipotle_GMO_labeling_Whole_Foods.html

GATES: LAND GRABS R US; SUBSISTENCE FARMERS FORCED OUT

Guatemala's sugar cane land rush anything but sweet for corn growers

Sugar cane and palm oil companies able to afford inflated rents are forcing Guatemala's smallholder farmers off their land

Sibylla Brodzinsky in Astillero, Guatemala
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 26 June 2013 10.51 EDT

Priced out … Guatemalan farmer Victor Manuel Vasquez tends his land. Industrial plantations are affecting livelihoods. Photograph: Juan Manuel Barrero Bueno/Oxfam

For the past decade, the corn farmers of this village in southern Guatemala managed to scratch out two harvests of maize a year from the 10 hectares (24.7 acres) of land they rent. But the crop they planted in May will be their last.
"We no longer have land to grow on because the owners of the land told us that this will be our last harvest there," says Moisés Morales, president of the Amanecer farmers' association. Sugar cane growers, they were told, had offered double the rent that the corn growers paid. The corn farmers couldn't match the price.
The plots farmed by the Amanecer members used to be among thousands of corn farms in the municipality of Taxisco. Today they are surrounded by a sea of sugar cane fields. Most small plots have been bought up and crowded out by expanding cane farms. Many corn farmers have left the area for the low foothills of nearby mountains "where cane harvesting machines can't go", says Morales.
"We're being surrounded bit by bit," he says. "We're like on a small island in the middle of all this cane."
Farmers are trapped in a land rush in Guatemala, which has one of the most unequal land distribution structures in the world. Before the spike in demand, 78% of Guatemala's arable land was in the hands of 8% of the population, according to government statistics from 2003. The trend since has been concentration of land by sugar cane and African palm companies aiming to meet demand for biofuel in Europe and the US, says Laura Hurtado, an agrarian expert with Oxfam.
Some progress on land reform was made after the end of Guatemala's civil war in 1996, when peace deals included an agreement to promote the democratisation of land structures and reverse the concentration of land. But an estimated 46% of smallholders who were granted land titles after the peace accords no longer hold them, according to Hurtado.
"It's terrible to see that, 15 years after the peace accords, the little that was won has been lost," she says. Many farmers are selling their land because of unpayable debt or crops failure – and sugar and palm companies are snapping up the bargains. Often, farmers are coerced into selling when they see their access to roads or water cut off by encroaching plantations. Others are threatened outright.
Palm and cane plantations are expanding in areas where lands have been newly titled. "The fact that newly titled farmers go into debt to plant their crops makes the lands more vulnerable to be appropriated," says Hurtado, who points out that maps of newly titled land and palm and sugar plantations overlap at many points.
Sometimes, things get violent. In 2011, more than 750 families were forcibly evicted in the Polochic valley in northern Guatemala because the owners of a sugar refinery claimed ownership of land that had been occupied by landless peasants after lying fallow for several years.
The Polochic area eviction has come to symbolise a broader struggle for land by smallholder farmers. According to the secretariat for agrarian affairs, more than 1 million people were involved in nearly 1,400 land disputes as of May.
Agriculture minister Elmer López, who has a background in development, says the government's official policy is to prevent the reconcentration of land, but that it lacks effective tools to do so. The agencies established by the peace accords to address land issues "did not receive enough support" from a succession of governments, which focused more on promoting agribusiness for export than supporting domestic food security. In addition to Guatemala's main export crops of coffee, sugar, rubber and bananas, the country exports cane and palm oil for biofuels, and baby vegetables for the US market. Cardamom, which is not used in Guatemalan cooking, is a major export product to the Middle East and India.
A rural development law that would have promoted better access to land, employment and other rights for smallholder farmers – but which stopped short of proposing all-out land reform – was thwarted in Congress last year amid opposition from large landowners and businesses that, according to López, had an "allergic reaction" to the proposals.
Paulo de Leon, director of investment consulting firm Central American Business Intelligence, says the bill was flawed because it "left open for the agriculture authorities to determine the use of land and the subject of ownership".
He questioned the need to help small-scale landholders in the first place, claiming that in 20 years 75% of Guatemala's population will shift to the cities, if urbanisation trends continue.
All the more reason, says López, for Guatemala to concentrate on rural development. "What's better: for a family to move to the city with dignity, and whose children have the skills to live well in the city, or for a family to arrive penniless with no skills other than an eternal hope that things in the city will be better?"
• Sibylla Brodzinsky travelled to Guatemala from Colombia, where she is based, on a reporting grant from Oxfam

GMO CONTAMINATION SPREADING TO NON-GMO NATIONS

Non GM South Korea Finds GMO Contamination

An increasing number of non-GMO producing countries and regions are finding genetically engineered plants in their fields, roadsides and even cities. South Korea is the latest.

South Korea doesn’t grow genetically engineered crops but like Switzerland last year it is finding GM plants growing wild throughout the country.
The National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) collected 626 samples of four main genetically engineered crops; maize, rapeseed, cotton and soya bean.
Analysis revealed genetically engineered DNA in samples from 19 regions including in 6 cities.
South Korea imports GM crops for animal feed and processing and so samples were collected from areas around major ports, factories livestock farms and road ways.
The most commonly found GM species were maize (corn), cotton and rapeseed.
Contamination on the rise
The NIER reported that there has been a 33% increase in the level of detected GMO contamination cases in the wider environment since 2009.
Most of the contamination is from seeds that had taken root after falling to the ground during storage or transportation.
Around farms the contamination was much more extensive with entire colonies of the plants becoming established.

Mounting risks from GMO contamination
The potential environmental damage of this contamination is a concern to the NIER.
The report highlighted changes in microorganisms in the soil: the negative impact of the GM insecticide gene (Bt) on non-target plant eating insects, cross contamination with native plants and contamination throughout the food chain.
“Because plants are not quarantined, they can reproduce with similar species, and it is possible that the modified DNA could move to other plants,” said Lee Byeong-yun, manager of plant resources at the National Institute of Biological Resources.
“If this happens, it could create a number of undesirable situations. It might prevent these species’ natural DNA from being expressed.”
Seo Jae-hwa, a researcher on the Biosafety Research Team at NIER highlighted that; “There is a possibility that the pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant genes in the GMOs could accidentally enter plants they were not intended for through handlers’ carelessness.”
The human error was inventing the seeds, not handling them.
But blaming handlers for the contamination is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
As recent experience in Oregon, Switzerland, Western Australia and other regions has shown GMOs cannot be contained either in the field, or in the food chain and certainly not within research trials.
Until a solution to prevent contamination is found the answer is to stop transporting these genetically engineered crops across the world; stop feeding them to animals; and even to stop growing them.
In the light of these ongoing contamination problems, the UK’s push for GM crops looks ill considered and irresponsible.

18/6/13
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/590585.html
http://www.gmeducation.org/s/latest-news/p191037/gmo-contamination-hits-gm-free-switzerland.html  

ROUNDUP FAILING ON FOOD CROPS, EPA's ANSWER: MUCH, MUCH MORE CANCER-CAUSING ROUNDUP

EPA Raises Allowable Concentrations of Monsanto’s Glyphosate On Food Crops

June 19, 2013 by Arjun

Monsanto continues to make more noise as they have recently raised the allowable concentrations of Monsanto’s Glyphosate on food crops, edible oils and animal feed. To be technically correct, it was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but the EPA and Monsanto are nothing but a revolving door.  Dozens of individuals who work for and who have held high level positions at Monsanto have also held high level positions in the EPA, which is an agency (branch of the U.S. government) that sets regulations for the biotech giant (monsanto). For example, Linda J. Fisher, now working for DuPont, she is the former deputy administrator at the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the EPA, and the former Vice President of Government Affairs for the Monsanto Corporation. Another one is William Ruckelshaus. Mr Ruckelshaus served as the EPA administrator, the agencies top position. Mr Ruckelshaus also serves on the board of Monsanto. There are many more connections to be made (dozens), it’s no secret that the government, EPA as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) all hold connections amongst each other.

Urgent action is required here. Public comments are due by July 1 to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place (Increase of glyphosate contamination). You can object and post your comments here. It’s time to make better choices in our own lives!

The new regulation sets the following regulations regarding glyphosate residues on crops:

• It allows forage and hay teff to contain up to 100 ppm glyphosate (over one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer)
• It allows oilseed crops to contain up to 40 ppm glyphosate, which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer.
• It raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level of root crops (like potatoes) from 200 ppb to 6000 ppb
• It allows glyphosate contamination of fruits at anywhere from 200 ppb to 500 ppb

You can read the entire document here.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity date and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers including infants and children. -EPA (4)

Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A, EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.EPA  (4)

Glyphosate was recently found to cause cancer, you can read the recent study here.

You can read more studies on how harmful Glyphosate is here and here  .

Clearly, the EPA has not evaluated the toxicity properly. Glyphosate was recently found to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumours. Monsanto’s roundup has been responsible for fuelling breast cancer by increasing the number of breast cancer cells through cell growth and cell division. Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an xenoestrogen, which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive-estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because their potential additive estrogenicity  (4)

Over the past few months the world has seen a staggering amount of activity surrounding biotech giant Monsanto. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, it is the leading producer of genetically engineered seed (GE) and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand. A few weeks ago, there was a worldwide March against Monsanto that millions participated in all over the world, it wasn’t televised. On the eve of that march, the United States Senate shut down a GMO labelling bill that would have required all states to label GMO products, you can read more about that here. A few weeks before that happened, Barack Obama signed the H.R. 933, otherwise known as the “Monsanto Protection Act”. You can read more about that here.

What may look like setbacks from the government as well as the Monsanto corporation only come as a result of the current global awakening taking place. So much evidence has recently surfaced that coincides with all of the actions mentioned in the above paragraph. For example, Monsanto’s Glyphosate was recently linked to cancer, you can read more about that here. Scientists also discovered that the Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops damage red blood cells, you can read about that here. There are so many more connections that show how harmful Monsanto is, and how we need to make better choices in our own lives. I encourage you to browse through our health, alternative news, and science/tech sections for more info, or simply use the search bar with key words like “Monsanto”, and “GMO” for more information.

Sources:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-0009
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00015/6-Dost-Glyphosate.pdf
http://www.naturalnews.com/040842_glyphosate_EPA_regulations_contamination_levels.html
Source:  http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/06/19/epa-raises-allowable-concentrations-of-monsantos-glyphosate-on-food-crops/

GUESS WHO'S GOING 100% ORGANIC?

Bhutan To Be First Country to Go 100% Organic

by Anthony Gucciardi
February 18th, 2013
Updated 02/18/2013 at 2:17 am

If there was ever a nation that could see the purpose behind organic, sustainable farming, it would be a nation that is composed mostly of farmers. Such a place does exist, and it soon may be the first nation to go 100% organic, paving the way for others to do the same on a global scale.
The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is known for a high level of citizen happiness, but it is doing something even more noteworthy in the near future. With Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley making a major announcement regarding the organic farming project at the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development which took place last month, the move has made national headlines. It’s called the National Organic Policy, and it is fueled by the simple concept that working ‘in harmony with nature’ will yield the most powerful results — all without sacrificing human health or the environment.
What this comes down to is no GMO, no pesticides, no herbicides, no fluoride-based spray products, no Monsanto intrusion at all, and a whole lot of high quality food available for the 700,000 citizens of Bhutan. Food that, at one time, was simply called ‘food’. In the statement to other policy makers, Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley explained the move:

“By working in harmony with nature, they can help sustain the flow of nature’s bounties.”

Bhutan’s land currently supplys most corn, rice, fruits, and some vegetables, and it is perfectly positioned to begin developing 100% organic farming. In addition to containing a population that is mostly farmers, it also has extremely rich lands that are truly beyond what many consider organic.
Some lands in Bhutan have not even been touched with harsh chemicals of any kind, and traditional techniques are utilized to produce high yields without Monsanto dipping into the pockets of family farmers. This is in sharp contrast to India’s farming community, which has been shafted by Monsanto and subsequently nicknamed the ‘suicide belt‘ due to the rampant suicides that can be blamed in part by Monsanto-induced financial ruin.
Australian adviser to Bhutan, Andre Leu, explains:

“I don’t think it’s going to be that difficult given that the majority of the agricultural land is already organic by default.”

The shift is certainly inspiring, but it also reminds us about the true lunacy of designating foods as ‘organic’ and ‘traditional’ in modern society. These Bhutan farmers are not growing magic beans or enchanted corn, they are growing real food. Actual food as it was grown for thousands of years. It’s only now, with the advent of ways in which we can toxify our crops, do we value organic as if it were some privilege or act of class. When it comes down to it, we just want real food.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/bhutan-to-be-first-country-to-go-100-organic/#ixzz2XEbegpqA

GMOs TARGETED BY RETAIL GIANT

Target to Remove GMOs from Major Food Brand

by Elizabeth Renter
June 17th, 2013
Updated 06/17/2013 at 1:52 pm

Super store giant, Target, has announced they will be adding a new brand to their shelves—one that is made with natural health in mind. Called Simply Balanced, the brand will be on shelves soon and will phase out genetically modified ingredients by the end of 2014. 

According to a press release on the Target official website, the initial roll-out will include a selection of foods that are 40% organic and the majority of them will not contain GMOs. GMOs will be completely absent from the ingredients within the next year and a half.
This, they say, is in an effort to align with the “increasing demand for healthy food products at a great price.” The Simply Balanced brand will also exclude other harmful ingredients while striving to provide consumers with a natural and affordable store-brand option.

Read: Bhutan To Be First Country to Go 100% Organic
The Simply Balanced collection is crafted to be free of artificial flavors, colors and preservatives, and avoids high fructose corn syrup. The collection never uses trans fats, is mindful about the amount of sodium in each product, and forty percent of the products are organic – giving guests more of the simple, recognizable ingredients they know and want – and a food label they can understand.
As a wellness brand built on purity and simplicity, Simply Balanced products exclude 105 common food additive ingredients, and the vast majority of the items within the collection are made without GMOs. As part of Target’s commitment to wellness, the Simply Balanced collection will eliminate all GMOs by the end of 2014.  
In all, there will be nearly 250 products carrying the brand name, ranging in price from $1 for water to $14.99 for seafood products. Snacks, pasta, drinks, dairy, cereal, and frozen seafood will all be included in the lineup.
This brand is replacing two subsets of the current store-brand Archer Farms: Archer Farms Simply Balanced and Archer Farms Organic. The store will begin rolling out the new products this month.
As consumers continue to voice their opinions with the almighty dollar, corporations have no choice but to respond accordingly. Continue supporting businesses that provide organic, local, and GMO-free products and urge local stores to carry more of these options.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/target-to-remove-gmos-from-major-food-brand/#ixzz2XEaGYcdQ