Thursday, April 26, 2012

ALL ABOARD THE CALIFORNIA GMO LABELING INITIATIVE! RALLIES MAY 2, 2012!

Organic Consumers Association and California Right to Know Rally!

Join us on May 2, 2012, to Celebrate our Success!

Rally and march May 2 to celebrate turning in nearly a million signatures to put the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative on the ballot! Kids, babies, baby carriages encouraged – we’ll be wheeling in petitions in carriages to represent the importance of this issue to children and future generations.

Please arrive at 10 a.m. Wednesday May 2 with signs, baby strollers, and balloons encouraged too. We will rally and march to deliver petitions at 11 am.

San Francisco – Meet in front of San Francisco City Hall on Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet Place, near Civic Center BART. Speakers include Pamm Larry from Label GMOs, Right to Know campaigners, and supporters of the GMO labeling initiative.

Contact: Rachel Pachivas, labelgmosbayareasignatures@gmail.com

Los Angeles – Meet at the Board of Elections office at 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk. Speakers TBD.

Contact: Stacey Hall, gmofreesocal@gmail.com

Sacramento – Meet at Board of Elections office at 7000 65th Street, Sacramento. Speakers include Grant Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms, local volunteers and other initiative supporters. Contact: Susan Lang, happymommy41@yahoo.com

Share- Please share this invitation!

Please copy and paste and send this invitation to your list, post it on facebook, tweet about it, blog about it, send it to 10 press contacts or celebrities. Let's celebrate our success publicly to attract the mainstream press.

NOTE about visuals: We want to make a strong show of celebration -- signs, balloons, carriages and/or strollers or red wagons to wheel in petitions will be ideal. In San Francisco and Sacramento there will be 2-4 petition boxes to wheel in (they are 35 pounds each), but LA has up to 20 boxes and needs lots of strollers! Get out those jogging strollers!

Monday, April 23, 2012

OCCUPY THE DIRT - BAY AREA - WOO- HOO!

'Whole Food, Not Whole Foods': Renegade Farmers Reclaim Land on Earth Day

To prevent the sale for private development, citizens plant community garden

- Common Dreams staff

Bay area residents on Sunday, in order to prevent development of a chain grocery store, reclaimed 10 acres of land owned by the University of California-Berkeley and planted a community garden.
An Occupy the Farm protester rototills a patch of land owned by UC Berkeley at Buchanan and Jackson streets in Albany. (Kevin Johnson / The Chronicle) The protesters-cum-gardeners, several dozen of them in all, broke the lock on a chain-linked fence about mid-day and got to work digging beds, roto-tilling soil, and planting carrots, broccoli, and other vegetables. The plan is to build a sustainable community garden and stave off any attempt by UC Berkeley to sell the land for private development. Gopal Dayaneni, one of the 20 or so core organizers of the action, told the San Jose Mercury News that the group was committed to growing both the farm and its community of farmers. Volunteers had about 10,000 starts -- small bulbs or seedlings -- and dug dozens of rows. Some people brought chickens, and the group even brought in a large tank for watering.
"This is the last, best agricultural soil in the East Bay, and we want it to be preserved for community farming and sustainable urban agriculture, not chopped up and sold off in pieces by the university," said Dayaneni, a 43-year-old Oakland resident and father of two who said he's long been active in environmental and ecological issues in the East Bay.
Police were on the scene throughout the day, but no arrests were reported. The 'renegade farmers' were pitching tents at the end of the day, but said they had no plans to permanently occupy the land. "Our goal is not to live here, our goal is to create a working urban agro-ecological farm," Anya Kamenskaya, a spokesperson for the group, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

* * *

San Francisco Chronicle: Activists raise stakes with renegade farmA group of Occupy the Farm protesters work to plow a lot owned by the University of California near the corner of Buchanan Street and San Pablo Avenue in Albany, Calif., on Sunday, April 22, 2012 (Aric Crabb/Staff)

A tussle between preservationists and UC Berkeley over a decadelong development project in Albany erupted into a pitchfork protest Sunday, when activists planted a renegade farm on a plot of land known as the Gill Tract in an effort to keep it agriculturally pristine.
Timing their action to Earth Day, about 200 members of Occupy the Farm to Take Back the Gill Tract broke a lock on a gate, rototilled the soil and planted carrot, broccoli and corn seedlings on part of the 10-acre site at Marin and San Pablo avenues. The Albany tract is owned by UC Berkeley, which has plans for further housing and commercial development nearby.
Police were on hand not long after the activists broke in at mid-afternoon and informed them they were breaking the law, but no arrests were made.
By early evening, there was no police presence visible at the site, located near a busy street corner just east of Highway 80. Most of the activists had departed, but 50 or 60 planned to camp out at the site and had begun erecting tents.
Anya Kamenskaya, a spokeswoman for the group, said police officers told them they might return, but it was unclear if they would try to evict them.
"We think it is the height of irony that a upscale national chain grocery store would be building on arable land where food can be grown here for the community."--Anya Kamensksaya, renegade farmer
"Our goal is not to live here, our goal is to create a working urban agro-ecological farm," Kamenskaya said.
There was no immediate comment on the situation from UC Berkeley representatives. [...]
"I wouldn't call this property damage, I'd call it property enrichment," said Lesley Haddock, a UC Berkeley sophomore who was part of the farm-in. "Basically what we did was pull out weeds. We're not trying to protect it as is, but to turn it into a community hub for agriculture."
She said Occupy the Farm was not linked to the Occupy Oakland protests, but "was philosophically inspired by it." The movement, she added, was done in solidarity with the Brazilian Movimiento Sin Tierra (Landless Workers Movement) and La Via Campesina (the International Day of Peasant's Struggles).
The activists erected signs, including one that read "Whole food, not Whole Foods," a reference to the grocery chain that is a possible tenant at the site.

"We think it is the height of irony that a upscale national chain grocery store would be building on arable land where food can be grown here for the community," Kamenskaya said. * * *

San Jose Mercury News: Protesters occupy Berkeley-owned farm tract in AlbanyAsa Dodsworth muscles a mound of vegetation on his shoulder at a patch of arable land at the intersection of Buchanan and Jackson in Albany on Sunday. Several hundred people occupied a tract of arable land in Berkeley on Sunday where they tilled soil and planted seeds for a community garden. (Photo: Kevin Johnson / The Chronicle)

The group said it hopes the university will commit to using the remaining land for public farming, rather than selling it off. The new farm, Dayaneni said, is a work in progress, but the group hopes to build on Sunday's efforts and make it a source of "healthy, local, yummy, tasty food for people who need it."
A live online video stream from Ustream user BellaEiko on Sunday showed dozens of protesters milling about the tract around 4 p.m., some of them gardening. A few minutes earlier, the stream showed University of California police officers telling protesters that they were trespassing and subject to arrest.
Neither Cal spokesman Dan Mogulof nor university police immediately returned phone calls Sunday afternoon asking for comment. Albany police referred all questions to university police.
Dayaneni said the group has been cordial with police and is planning to camp out to protect its hard work.
"Occupy the Farm is committed to farming; that's the purpose of it," he said. "If (police) want to tell us to leave, we'll keep farming, and they'll have to make a decision what to do."
Source: Published on Monday, April 23, 2012 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/23-0

VERMONT - WE DEMAND LABELS ON GMO!

GMO Labeling Passed out of Committee

April 20, 2012: Today, the House Agriculture Committee voted 9-1 in favor of H.722, the bill that would require labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in Vermont. The vote came after the Committee had heard nearly a month’s worth of testimony, including at the April 12th public hearing when hundreds of the bill’s supporters packed the house chamber and over 100 testified unanimously in favor of the bill.

We hope that you take the time to thank the members of the House Agriculture Committee for their hard work on the bill. (you can see a list and find their contact information here.)

Since the public hearing, the Committee has been working on the bill to make sure that it addressed the many reasons why people have a right to know what they are eating. Unfortunately, before passing the bill, the committee added a “trigger clause” that would not allow the bill to go into effect until 365 days after a similar bill is passed by California, as well as two states in the Northeast.

The bill will now move to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will be examined before it can reach the floor. It is not likely that the Judiciary Committee will have time to consider the bill, because the legislative session is slated to end in less than two weeks.

We want to thank everyone who has worked so hard in support of the bill, especially all of you who took the time to come to the public hearing in Montpelier. The VT Right to Know GMOs coalition will be meeting on Monday to discuss the next steps for this campaign, and we will let you know what you can do to help keep this important issue alive.

Thanks again for all the hard work and support.

Falko Schilling
Consumer Protection Advocate, VPIRG
falko@vpirg.org
802-223-5221 x.26

David L. Rogers,
Policy Advisor, NOFA Vermont
dave@nofavt.org
802-434-4122 (NOFA office)
802-244-6446 (Home office)

Andrea Stander
Executive Director, Rural Vermont
andrea@ruralvermont.org
802-223-7222

Sunday, April 22, 2012

THE END OF ALL ORGANICS?? GROUPS SUE TO STOP GMO ALFALFA

New Lawsuit Filed Over GMO Alfalfa

Jason Best
SlashFood
April 24, 2011

The next skirmish over genetically modified foods is getting underway, pitting a coalition of environmental, consumer and food-safety groups against the federal government. Early this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved unrestricted planting of a type of GM alfalfa engineered by Monsanto. To the average consumer, that might not sound like such a big deal-after all, we’re not rabbits.

But rabbits aren’t the only animals that like to munch on the sweet grass. Alfalfa is the primary food source for cows, too. No only that, but alfalfa has a wily propensity to cross-pollinate across miles; over time, opponents say, there’s no way to ensure that the GM variety doesn’t intermix with the non-GM variety. What that means is that the government’s decision to approve the use of GM alfalfa could spell the end of organic dairy products, ranging from milk to yogurt. By law, no GM ingredients can be used in the production of anything labeled “organic.”

Opponents also charge that widespread use of GM alfalfa will result in the release of an estimated 23 million more pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment. That’s because Monsanto developed its GM alfalfa to withstand application of its Roundup herbicide. Currently, more than 90 percent of the alfalfa grown in the U.S. does not use any herbicide, according to the UDSA. Critics say that planting GM alfalfa will not only lead to more herbicide use, it will encourage an already growing problem of herbicide-resistant weeds, so-called “superweeds.”

A broad coalition of groups, ranging from environmental organizations such as Earthjustice to public advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, have filed suit in federal court to block USDA’s decision.

“Approving the unrestricted planting of GE alfalfa is a blatant case of the USDA serving one form of agriculture at the expense of all others,” says one of the plaintiffs in the case, in a press release issued by the coalition. “If this decision is not remedied, the result will be lost livelihoods for organic dairy farmers, loss of choice for farmers and consumers, and no transparency about [GM] contamination of our foods.”

2012 FARM BILL - HUGE PROFIT OVER PEOPLE & FARMERS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2012
5:19 PM

CONTACT: Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Don Carr, 202-667-6982, don@ewg.org

2012 Senate Farm Bill Does More Harm Than Good

WASHINGTON - April 20 - Statement of Craig Cox, Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Environmental Working Group, on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s 2012 farm bill.
“The 2012 farm bill should do more to support family farmers, protect the environment, promote healthy diets and support working families. Unfortunately, the bill produced today by the Senate Agriculture Committee will do more harm than good. It needlessly sacrifices conservation and feeding assistance programs to finance unlimited insurance subsidies and a new entitlement program for highly profitable farm businesses. Rather than simply ending the widely discredited direct payment program, the Senate Agriculture Committee has created an expensive new entitlement program that guarantees most of the income of farm businesses already enjoying record profits. Replacing direct payments with a revenue guarantee program is a cynical game of bait-and-switch that should be rejected by Congress.
“The proposed legislation doubles down on unlimited subsidies to buy and deliver farm insurance – at a cost of $90 billion over the next ten years. Modest reforms to these heavily subsidized insurance programs, such as means-testing and capping premium subsidies, would save enough money to spare conservation and anti-hunger programs from the proposed cuts. Crop insurance has not only become an expensive new subsidy for large farm businesses, it has also become an entitlement program for insurance agents and insurers, including companies based in tax havens such as Bermuda and Switzerland.
“EWG is disappointed that the Committee failed to address the impact of fence-row to fence-row agricultural production, which is putting unprecedented pressure on our land, water and wildlife. Although the Committee extended conservation compliance to the revenue guarantee program, we are disappointed that the Committee failed to require that farmers protect wetlands, grasslands and soil health in exchange for insurance subsidies. In combination, a new entitlement program, unlimited secret insurance subsidies, cuts to conservation programs and high commodity prices will create powerful incentives to plow up fragile wetlands and grasslands and erase many of the environmental gains made by agriculture in recent years.
“We applaud the provisions in the bill that create and expand programs that support healthy diets and organic farmers, as well as expanding links between local farmers and consumers. We also support efforts to reform conservation programs to get more conservation bang for the buck.
“But for the leadership of Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), this proposal would have been far worse. We look forward to working with Sen. Stabenow and other members of the Committee to strengthen conservation and nutrition provisions of the bill and to place reasonable limits on subsidies for highly-profitable farm businesses.”

###

The mission of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.

POLAND: HELL NO GMO!

Poland Announces Complete Ban on Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Maize

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
April 5, 2012

Following the anti-Monsanto activism launched by nations like France and Hungary, Poland has announced that it will launch a complete ban on growing Monsanto’s genetically modified strain MON810. The announcement, made by Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, sets yet another international standard against Monsanto’s genetically modified creations. In addition to being linked to a plethora health ailments, Sawicki says that the pollen originating from this GM strain may actually be devastating the already dwindling bee population.

“The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland,” Sawicki stated to the press.

Similar opposition to Monsanto occurred on March 9th, when 7 European countries blocked a proposal by the Danish EU presidency which would permit the cultivation of genetically modified plants on the entire continent. It was France, who in February, lead the charge against GMOs by asking the European Commission to suspend authorization to Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. What’s more, the country settled a landmark case in favor of the people over Monsanto, finding the biotech giant guilty of chemical poisoning.

In a ruling given by a court in Lyon (southeast France), grain grower Paul Francois stated that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on the Lasso weedkiller product label which resulted in neurological problems such as memory loss and headaches. The court ordered an expert opinion to determine the sum of the damages, and to verify the link between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The result was a guilty charge, paving the way for further legal action on behalf of injured farmers.

Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides. However only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years.

Nations are continually taking a stand against Monsanto, with nations like Hungary destroying 1000 acres of GM maize and India slamming Monsanto with ‘biopiracy‘ charges.

USDA PIMPING MONSANTO GLOBALLY

USDA to Give Monsanto’s New GMO Crops Special ‘Speed Approval’

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
February 23, 2012

If you thought Monsanto’s lack of testing on their current GMO crops was bad before, prepare to now be blown away by the latest statement by the USDA. Despite links to organ damage and mutated insects, the USDA says that it is changing the rules so that genetically modified seed companies like Monsanto will get ‘speedier regulatory reviews’. With the faster reviews, there will be even less time spent on evaluating the potential dangers. Why? Because Monsanto is losing sales with longer approval terms.

The changes are expected to take full effect in March when they’re published in the Federal Register. The USDA’s goal is to cut the approval time for GMO crops in half in order to speedily implement them into the global food supply. The current USDA process takes longer than they would like due to ‘public interest, legal challenges, and the challenges associated with the advent of national organic food standards‘ says USDA deputy administrator Michael Gregoire.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, problems like public interest (activist groups attempting to bring the dangers of GMO crops to light), legal challenges (farmers suing Monsanto over genetic contamination), and national food standards are all getting in the way of their prime goal — to helpMonsanto unleash their latest untested GMO creation. In fact, the concern is that Monsanto may be losing cash flow as nations like Brazil speed genetically modified seeds through laughable approval processes.

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association, states it quite plainly. This is a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After all, who cares about public health?

“It is a concern from a competition standpoint,” Censky said in a telephone interview.

The same statements are re-iterated by analyst Jeff Windau in an interview with Bloomberg:

“If you can reduce the approval time, you get sales that much faster,” said Windau

If you can reduce the approval time, as in the time it takes to determine if these food products are safe, then you can get sales much faster. Is the USDA working for the United States consumer, or is it working for Monsanto?

Explore More:

Clean Food Earth