HONOLULU - WE THE PEOPLE - VANDANA SHIVA -GMO RALLY 1-16-13

ALOHA CALL TO ACTION!

Honolulu, Hawaii, Please join us as we join our voices in an effort to take back our government from the control of the corporations.

We will do more than grumble and talk...we will march and rally and organize our voice into one...THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!!!

Participate and share this with others. This will be a great event! Walter Ritte

NEW MEXICO: COOKING UP A NEW GMO LABELING LAW

Next Prop 37? New Mexico Law Calls for Mandatory Labeling of GMOs

by Anthony Gucciardi
January 3rd, 2013 | Updated 01/03/2013 at 1:29 am

Is this the next Prop 37, complete with a forthcoming wave of successful activism and education from concerned consumers? Unfortunately we know that Prop 37 failed due to not only irrefutable deception and lies from the Monsanto-funded ‘No on 37′ campaign, but also seriously questionable vote counting. What did succeed, however, is mounting awareness over the dangers of GMOs and the subsequent need for labeling.
This awareness has triggered New Mexico lawmakers to introduce legislation that actually calls for the mandatory labeling of GMOs within the state. In essence, it’s the next Prop 37 — and it’s influence is very much the same. It’s also a second chance for health activists worldwide to start the proverbial fire that will ignite similar legislation around the nation and eventually the world.
The New Mexico bill, which was introduced by State Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe), goes into debate this year and will likely be hit (in a similar manner to Prop 37) with a ton of corporate-backed roadblocks. Nevertheless, it’s statistically what the consumers want. Over 90 percent of United States citizens have repeatedly voiced their support of GMO labeling legislation. And that’s using very conservative figures; many show 96% or higher.
Now I don’t agree with everything Senator Wirth does, but this bill is definitely a step in the right direction. And as he puts it, it’s blatantly simple. It’s really not challenging to add an additional notification to consumers that products contain genetically altered ingredients — ingredients that have been linked to everything from infertility to tumors. In fact, it’s beyond absurd that these indicators do not exist. Of course Monsanto and other mega corps profiting on this fact simply do not want you to know what you’re eating.
In a statement reported by RT, Wirth explains:

“The premise of this amendment is simple – New Mexicans deserve the right to know what’s in the food they are eating and feeding to their families.”

The issue is that a precedent was set with the multi-million dollar squelching of Prop 37, an achievement that Monsanto and fellow goons put as one of their greatest. With Prop 37 being crushed by deception, it makes approving this legislation harder. Because in the eyes of some legislators (besides those paid off by corporations who profit from GMOs) it has already been tried.
Major organizations are already giving their support for the bill, however, and many more will likely soon come out and sound the alarm. Food & Water Watch is one of these organizations, with the New Mexico offices coming out and cheering the success of the bill and the necessity of GMO labeling. The organization’s New Mexico Organizer Eleanor Bravo said:

 “Giving foods with GE ingredients a label will only improve and expand independent health and scientific knowledge about genetic engineering…”

The time is now to begin spreading the word about this initiative and lighting the fire. It’s almost a certainty that Monsanto & Co. will pump millions into defeating this legislation if it gets too big, but we can have the edge by getting into the game before they disseminate their deceitful propaganda to voters. Ultimately Monsanto will fail, and it will be a grassroots campaign that is responsible for throwing the last stone.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/next-prop-37-new-mexico-law-calls-for-mandatory-labeling-of-gmos/#ixzz2H13QTMzN

SCARING THE HELL OUT OF THE SCARIEST CORPORATIONS ON THE PLANET

Published on Thursday, January 3, 2013 by Common Dreams

In 2013, Our Fight Against GMO Food Continues

by Ronnie Cummins

On November 6, in the wake of one of the most expensive and scurrilous smear campaigns in history, six million voters scared the hell out of Monsanto and Big Food Inc. by coming within a razor’s edge of passing the first statewide mandatory labeling law for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).The battle for GMO labeling and numerous challenges against the industrial food system will continue in 2013. (Image via garmaonhealth.com)
Prop 37, a citizens’ ballot initiative that would have required the mandatory labeling of billions of dollars of genetically engineered (GE) foods and put an end to the routine industry practice of fraudulently marketing GE-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural,” lost by a narrow margin of 48.6% to 51.4%. Opponents couldn’t claim anything close to a landslide, even though they outspent the pro-labeling campaign almost six to one.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) immediately put a happy face on the narrow victory, repeating its tired old propaganda in a public statement: “Proposition 37 was a deeply flawed measure that would have resulted in higher food costs, frivolous lawsuits and increased state bureaucracies. This is a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, business and farmers.”
But Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the Food Marketing Institute, came closer to expressing the real sentiments of the big guns who opposed Prop 37, a measure she had previously said “scared us to death,” in her official statement:
“This gives us hope that you can, with a well-funded, well-organized, well-executed campaign, defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters. We hope we don’t have too many of them, because you can’t keep doing that over and over again . . .”.
Maybe they can’t. But we can. Unlike the Food Marketing Institute and its friends at the GMA, consumers can – and will – “keep doing that over and over again.” We can – and will - propose state laws and state ballot initiatives as often as we need, in as many states as we must, until we have what 61 other countries have: truth and transparency in the form of mandatory GMO labeling laws. Far from giving up, the alternative food and farming movement that was narrowly defeated in California has evolved into a battle-savvy, seasoned national movement, bigger and stronger than ever.
As Zuri Allen, California Field Organizer of the Organic Consumers Association put it, “We may have lost this first major battle in California, but millions of angry and energized consumers across the country are now joining together in a nationwide right to know campaign which will ultimately drive genetically engineered crops and foods off the market.”
That clearly has Big Biotech and Big Food worried.  And well it should. We’ve barely rung in the new year, and already GMO labeling battles are heating up in Washington State, Vermont and Connecticut.  Other states aren’t far behind.
On Jan. 4, activists in Washington State will deliver approximately 300,000 signatures to the state legislature to guarantee that a mandatory GMO labeling Initiative, I-522, will be on the ballot in November. Initial polling shows that Washington state voters will likely pass this Ballot Initiative, no matter how much money the biotech industry and large food corporations put into an anti-labeling campaign.
On the other side of the country, Vermont is picking up where it left off last year after the governor caved in to Monsanto’s threats to sue the state if it passed a GMO labeling law. Undaunted, and buoyed by 90% support from consumers, legislators will reintroduce a GMO labeling bill in early January.  Vermont’s pro-organic, anti-GMO proponents fully expect to pass a labeling bill by May. Connecticut is right behind them, with plans to introduce a similarly popular GMO labeling bill early this year.
Why a win is just around the corner.
Giant biotech and junk food corporations, joined by major food processors and supermarket chains, poured more than $46 million dollars into a vicious dirty tricks campaign to defeat GMO labeling in California. Their tactics included a relentless barrage of TV and radio ads falsely claiming GE food labels would raise grocery prices, hurt family farmers, and enrich trial lawyers. They unleashed “scientific” testimonials manufactured by phony front groups, and they mailed counterfeit voter guides. They may even have engaged in “vote-flipping” by pre-programming electronic voting tabulators.
A statewide pre-election eve poll conducted by Lake Research found that the Biotech Behemoth’s “No on 37” propaganda campaign successfully confused many Californians. As of Nov. 5, the day before the election, the majority of Californians stated that they still supported mandatory labeling of GE foods. But a critical mass, especially the 40% who voted early by absentee ballot, said they were willing to give up their right to know what was in their food if mandatory GE labels might  increase food costs, expand the size and power of state bureaucrats, harm family farmers or unfairly benefit trial lawyers and other “special interests.”
That changed once the YES on 37 campaign launched its own modest $3-million ad campaign on October 27. Once the pro-labeling ads rolled out, several million undecided voters saw through the biotech and junk-food industry propaganda and voted Yes on 37. In fact, Prop 37 won the election-day vote. But it was too little, too late. The campaign couldn’t recover from its losses in early voting.
That was California. Washington State promises to tell a different story.
Looking at the logistics and outcome of the Prop 37 campaign in California in 2012 and comparing these to the upcoming I-522 battle in Washington, there are several major differences that will likely prove to be decisive:

1. Size and campaign costs. California is an enormous state, both geographically and in terms of population. Its TV and radio ad markets are also among the priciest in the country. Tough for a grassroots campaign with a small budget to reach California voters far and wide, on the ground and through the media. Even tougher to compete with an opposition willing and able to spend $46 million to win. Compare that scenario with Washington State, which has one-fifth the population of California, and where $1 spent on TV ads equals $8 in California.  Factor in that Washington’s population is highly concentrated in the health and environmentally-conscious Seattle metropolitan area, and it’s easy to see that internet, in-person contact, and radio and TV advertising will cost less and be easier to execute in Washington than it was in California. Experts estimate that Monsanto and its allies will be able to spend only $20 million in Washington on advertising. That’s enough to saturate the state’s airwaves. But it’s not too much for the Yes on I-522 campaign to overcome as long as it can raise and spend $4-$5 million – about half of what the California labeling campaign raised.
2. Timing. In California, Yes on 37 forces didn’t get on the ballot until May. That left only six months for public education and fundraising. In Washington, I-522 proponents have a full nine months before people begin their voting (which is by mail).
3. Support from farmers and rural communities. In California, Prop 37 was supported mostly by consumers and organic farmers. In Washington State, wheat farmers, whether organic or not, apple farmers and fishing communities also vocally support mandatory GMO labeling. That’s because GMO labeling is arguably in the best economic interests of a state where unlabeled GMO wheat, apples and salmon spilling into the market would severely damage state agricultural exports to countries that either forbid GMO imports or require GMO labeling.
4. Progressive elected officials and electorate. California’s Governor Brown refused to take a stand on Prop 37. But Washington’s new elected Governor, Jay Inslee, is a long-time supporter and former Congressional advocate of GMO labeling.  Washington voters recently reminded us that they are proud progressives, by approving the legalization of marijuana via a November ballot Initiative. California voters defeated a similar measure in 2010.
5. The Frankenfish controversy. Despite enormous public opposition and warnings by scientists that genetically engineered salmon pose unacceptable health and environmental risks, the Obama administration’s FDA announced in late December that it would nonetheless allow unlabeled genetically engineered salmon to be commercialized. Polls show that Washington voters are adamantly opposed to this fast-growing, likely allergenic mutant salmon - part fish, part eel - entering the market. Fishermen/fisherwomen, chefs and restaurants are already raising their voices in opposition. Meanwhile in Alaska, GMO salmon will have to be labeled because of a state law passed in 2005. The biotech industry is going to have a difficult time explaining why Frankenfish have to be labeled in Alaska, but not in Washington or other states.
6. Divisions between Big Food and Big Biotech. As the comments by the Food Marketing Institute executive suggest, big food companies are starting to worry about their image. They’re worried about having to fight costly, high-profile battles against GMO labeling in numerous states, possibly even simultaneously.  A number of large food companies that dumped big money into defeating Prop 37 – companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft and Dean Foods, own “natural” or organic brands. Those brands, including Kashi, Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Ben and Jerry’s, White Wave, Horizon and others, are starting to feel the heat from angry consumers who have joined the “Traitor Boycott.” How long will the nation’s food manufacturers and supermarket chains carry the water and do the dirty work for Monsanto and biotech industry?

It’s only a matter of time before we pass GMO legislation. Once we do, it will mark the beginning of the end for GMO food and farming, just as it did in Europe. But to ensure that this happens, sooner rather than later, state GMO right-to-know campaigns in Washington, Vermont, Connecticut and other states need money, technical assistance volunteers, and endorsements.

Ronnie Cummins is a veteran activist, author, and organizer. He is the International Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica. http://www.organicconsumers.org; http://www.viaorganica.org

SPEAK OUT! NO FREAKIN' "ANIMAL-DRUG" GMO SALMON

Tell the FDA: NO Frankenfish! 

GMO Salmon Would Be Approved as ‘New Animal Drug’

  TAKE ACTION: Tell the FDA: No Frankenfish!

 

Please sign the petition to the FDA at the bottom of this page.

The first genetically engineered salmon - dubbed "frankenfish" - could be in grocery stores and restaurants as early as 2014. The FDA is expected to approve AquaBounty Technologies' GE salmon after a 60-day public comment period. If approved, it will be the first approved food from a transgenic animal application to enter the U.S. food supply.

Consumer and environmental activists oppose genetically engineered "frankenfish" for many reasons, including the potential danger it poses to human health, to the environment and to the U.S. fishing economy. Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with the Consumers Union, the advocacy and policy arm of Consumer Reports, called the FDA's Environmental Assessment (EA) of GE salmon "flawed and inadequate."

Please sign the petition (at the bottom of the page) if you agree that the FDA should reject should AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon, at least until it completes further, more reliable safety testing.

What is frankenfish?

AquaBounty Technologies, a Massachusetts-based biotech company, created the "AquAdvantage" salmon by injecting a fragment of DNA from an ocean pout fish, which is a type of eel, along with a growth hormone gene from the Chinook Pacific salmon, into a fertilised Atlantic salmon egg. The result? A salmon that produces growth hormone year round, instead of only during warm weather. This allows the fish to reach market weight in just 18 months, instead of the usual three years.

What are the risks?

1. Potential harm to human health. The FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six GE fish. Even with such limited testing, the results showed an increase in allergy-causing potential, according to Hansen. AquAdvantage also contains elevated levels of the growth hormone, IGF-1, which is linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers.
2. Potential harm to wild salmon population. Only 95% of the AquAdvantage salmon may be sterile, the rest fertile. Plus, the fish at the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada, will not be sterile. The FDA says the likelihood of the GE salmon escaping into the wild is "extremely remote" but gave little reassuring evidence to support that assumption. According to studies, the frankenfish eat five times more food than wild salmon, and have less fear of predators. All it would take is for some of these frankenfish to escape, and the world's wild salmon population would be at risk.
3. Unlabeled. Without GMO labeling, consumers will not be able to avoid frankenfish when it arrives in grocery stores and fish markets.
4. Less nutritious. GE salmon contains less Omega-3 fatty acids than non-GE salmon. Omega-3 fatty acids are the "good" fat which has important health benefits.
   
   TAKE ACTION: Tell the FDA: No Frankenfish!

(Watch the video of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski speaking against the approval of  genetically engineered salmon).

Additional Background

• The FDA's 158-page Environmental Assessment was completed May 14, but was blocked from release by the White House, which waited until December 21 - well after the election.
• The Environmental Assessment states that genetically engineered salmon will be adapted "to feeding on synthetic aquaculture diets." The FDA didn't explain what it meant by "synthetic aquaculture" or make any investigation into what the genetically engineered salmon would eat. Conventional farmed salmon can be fed byproducts from poultry processing, such as feathers, necks and intestines, and genetically modified soy and canola.
• The FDA said that AquAdvantage does not pose a threat to the environment and is "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon." But in its 5-page summary, the agency admits that it intentionally narrowed the scope of its analysis.
• Since September 2010 there has been unprecedented pushback on plans to grow an engineered variant of farmed Atlantic salmon. Over 400,000 public comments in opposition have been sent to the FDA. Forty members of Congress called for a full Environmental Impact Statement before approval was granted.
• Opponents argue that approval of frankenfish will pave the way for other genetically engineered animals for human consumption, which could raise serious questions about animal welfare.
• The Ocean Conservancy opposes AquAdvantage salmon.
• Intrexon Corporation owns a 48-percent stake in AquaBounty, the inventor of frankenfish. Intrexon is a biotechnology company focused on the industrial engineering of synthetic biology. Intrexon designs and produces novel and enhanced biological products and processes for protein production, agricultural biotechnology and animal science. The company boasts "unprecedented control over the function and output of living cells."

Sources

• FDA Misses the Boat in Signaling Approval of Genetically-Engineered Salmon by George Leonard, December 22, 2012
• Ready to Eat: The First GM Fish for the Dinner Table, by Steve Connor
• FDA Quietly Pushes Trhough Genetically Modified Salmon over Christmas Break by Anthony Gucciardi
• The Apocalypse is Here: FDA Clears Way for Fast-Growing GE Monster Salmon, by Susie Cagle
• CU Says FDA Assessment of GE Salmon Is Flawed and Inadequate, by Michael McCauley
• Intrexon to acquire 48% stake in AquaBounty

 

We need to keep fighting the pro-biotech, pro-Monsanto politics of the Obama Administration. Help us send as many public comments to the FDA as possible to try to stop genetically engineered salmon. Direct action is going to be necessary, too. If the Obama Administration stubbornly continues to hide behind the scientifically discredited Bush-Quayle doctrine of "substantial equivalence" claiming there isn't a "material" difference between genetically engineered and normal salmon, then we'll have no choice but to use every tactic we can muster to throw a wrench into the gears of the Frankenfoods Express.

 

Please sign the petition today.  And, please forward this action alert to everyone you know. Thank you!

I urge FDA to reject approval of genetically engineered salmon. GMO salmon hasn't been proven safe and shouldn't be approved for human consumption.
The jury is still out on the long-term effects of genetically engineered salmon on humans - there simply isn't enough data. But what we do know is that these genetic changes increase allergy risk, and produce a salmon with lower levels of Omega-3 fatty acids - the "good" fat which has important health benefits.
I am also concerned by the elevated levels of growth hormone in this fish. This poses a cancer risk, as elevated IGF-1 levels are linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers.
In addition, there are environmental impacts that the FDA has ignored in its Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact.
For example, the FDA found that genetically engineered salmon have "higher metabolism and food requirements" than normal salmon. Conventional salmon farming has been compared to raising tigers for meat. 1.5 – 8 kilograms of wild fish are needed to produce one kilogram of conventional farmed salmon. The FDA didn't investigate the environmental impacts of the genetically engineered salmon's increased food requirements.
The Environmental Assessment also mentions that genetically engineered salmon will be adapted "to feeding on synthetic aquaculture diets." The FDA didn't explain what it meant by "synthetic aquaculture" or make any investigation into what the genetically engineered salmon would eat. Conventional farmed salmon can be fed byproducts from poultry processing, such as feathers, necks and intestines, and genetically modified soy and canola.
Now Intrexon Corporation owns a 48-percent stake in AquaBounty, which invented the genetically engineered salmon, "synthetic aquaculture" could mean anything. Intrexon Corporation is a biotechnology company focused on the industrial engineering of synthetic biology. Intrexon designs and produces novel and enhanced biological products and processes for protein production, agricultural biotechnology and animal science. The company boasts "unprecedented control over the function and output of living cells."
The FDA should conduct a full Environment Impact Statement that takes into account a complete life-cycle analysis of the environmental impact of Intrexon's plans for raising genetically engineered salmon in dry-land tanks. 

 

Source:  http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9142

CHECK AUSSIE CRAP-MEAT OFF YOUR GROCERY LIST, PEOPLE!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 2, 2013 12:56 PM

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch Anna Ghosh, aghosh@fwwatch.org, 415-293-9905

Despite Food Safety Problems, Australia’s Privatized Meat Inspection Deemed “Equivalent” to U.S. by USDA

WASHINGTON - January 2 - Today the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review its decision to allow the newly privatized meat inspection system of Australia to be considered equivalent to U.S. inspection. In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the group pointed to repeated discoveries of meat imported from Australia that was contaminated with fecal material and digestive tract contents.
“Documents from USDA and Australian officials reveal that this is not an isolated problem,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “The repeated problems with products coming from Australia in 2012 show that this is a systemic problem and that privatized meat inspection in Australia is not working.”
One letter from a USDA official to Australian food safety officials, summed up the problems in imported products from Australia: “Within the last month, there have been five additional zero tolerance (fecal material/ingesta) POE (point-of-entry) violations in four separate establishments, including one establishment that had repetitive violations during this month (December, 2012), as well as earlier this calendar year.”
Australia is not the only country exporting meat to the United States that is operating a privatized inspection system, and is not the only exporting country with food safety problems. In 2012, there was a recall in the United States for 2.5 million pounds of Canadian beef products that were potentially contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 produced using a privatized inspection system that the USDA had secretly recognized in 2006.
“U.S. consumers should not be endangered by unsafe imports from Australia or from any other country exporting to the United States,” said Hauter. “It is time for USDA to revoke the equivalency determinations of privatized meat inspection schemes, and to abandon its attempts to privatize inspection here in the United States.”
Food & Water Watch's letter can be found at: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/AU_meat_equivalent_USDA_lette...

###

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. 

Source:   http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/01/02-0

GMO CORN, POTATOES BANNED IN....POLAND: USA STILL SKUTTLED IN COLLECTIVE LEGISLATIVE COMA?

Published on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 by Common Dreams

Poland Bans Genetically Modified Corn, Potatoes

- Common Dreams staff

Poland banned the cultivation of genetically modified corn and potatoes on Wednesday, Agence France-Presse is reporting.
The agency reports that while Prime Minister Donald Tusk felt "lawmakers had been forced to pass the blanket approval for GM crops," a loophole allowed the country to ban the specific strains of German agricultural giant BASF's Amflora strain of potato and Monsanto's MON 810 corn.
Greenpeace Hungary cheered Poland's move, saying it joined 8 other EU countries, including France, that have similar bans.
Greenpeace Poland stated, "The government has kept its promises."
SOURCE:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/02-13

INDIAN FOOD SUPPLY POISONED at 750x RATE OF EUROPEAN FOODFOOD

Published on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 by The Asian Age

Food Poisoning on a Global Scale

by Vandana Shiva

Food is supposed to provide us nourishment and health but because of the toxins it contains, what we consume has become a major threat to our health. Some toxic substances are added to our food physically, through adulteration, while some enter our food system chemically, through pesticide residues. And some toxins enter the food chain genetically, through genetic engineering of seeds and crops. Even food packaging can be a source of toxins in food.
While physical adulteration, like stones in pulses, can be removed, the chemicals can’t be. The pollutants will stop entering our food system only when poisonous chemicals are banned. Genetic pollution and contamination of food is the new, big threat to food safety and it cannot be undone. Once toxic genes are put into a plant, they are in the genetic code. There is no rollback. Which is why the debate on biosafety of GMOs is so intense.
With growing consumerism and greed, food safety is being bypassed. The distance between growers and eaters is getting larger and being ignorant about what comprises our food is getting deeper. Traders adulterate food to make more money, and consumers, manipulated to focus on the cosmetic appearance, buy adulterated food not knowing what they are eating. Government agencies, which are supposed to inspect and stop adulteration, fail because of corruption and inadequate support.
We are eating hazardous substances every day. Copper salts are used to colour pickles and canned vegetables green. The craze for the cosmetic appearance of food has created a market for dyes injected in watermelon, peas, capsicum and brinjal. Brick dust in chilli powder, coloured chalk powder in turmeric, and papaya seeds in black pepper are old tricks.
With new chemicals available in the market, adulteration has reached new levels. Apples are sprayed with lead arsenate; turmeric and mixed spices are adulterated with lead chromate. These substances can cause anaemia, abortion and paralysis.
One of the worst tragedies of food adulteration was the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, which was a food safety issue involving milk and infant formula adulterated with melamine. Melamine is an industrial chemical used to manufacture melamine-formaldehyde resin, a type of plastic known for its flame retardant properties. When added to milk, it caused it to appear to have higher protein content. But melamine causes renal and urinary problems and its use in food production is universally banned. The milk scandal broke in July 2008. By November there were 300,000 victims, with six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney complications.
If the Chinese were using melamine in milk, the Indians are using urea to make synthetic milk. Synthetic milk is produced by mixing urea, caustic soda, cheap cooking oil, detergents, water and a tiny bit of natural milk. It has the colour, the structure and even the fat levels of natural milk and thus clears the basic tests. Synthetic milk can cause loss of sight and hearing and is even said to cause cancer.
Oxytocin is a hormone secreted and stored by the posterior pituitary gland that contributes to the second stage of labour. It has uterine-contracting and milk-ejecting actions. Oxytocin is now available as an artificial drug for use in emergencies. The drug can lead to the rupture of the uterus and, in rare cases, rupture of the womb. While the oxytocin for humans is priced at `15 per ampule, veterinary oxytocin is priced at 50 paise per ampule.
The dairy industry uses it on animals in the mistaken belief that it increases milk production when all it does is make the milk come faster, while destroying the cow’s reproductive system. The cow goes dry in three years and is abandoned.
Not only is the cow harmed, but those who drink milk from oxytocin-injected cows are also at risk, especially children. Oxytocin causes imbalanced hearing and weak eyesight. For expecting mothers, oxytocin increases the risk of post-partum haemorrhage and can inhibit breastfeeding. Because of hormones in food, minor girls are attaining early puberty. Oxytocin is also used for growing vegetables. Injected into a pumpkin or squash, it doubles the size overnight.
Pesticides are becoming a major threat to our health. India has gone through three major tragedies — the Bhopal gas tragedy, the endosulfan tragedy in Kerala and the tragedy of Punjab’s cancer train — related to pesticides that should have woken us to the fact that pesticides kill and cripple.
We are using 750 times more pesticides than Europe, foolishly equating poisons with progress. A study carried out by the All-India Coordinated Research Project on pesticide residues in food under the India Council of Agricultural Research concluded that 51 per cent of all food items have pesticide residues, and 20 per cent had pesticide residues above permissible levels. Globally the figures are 21 per cent and two per cent respectively. Indians are being poisoned at much higher levels than the rest of the world. And these poisons have consequences for our health.
Dr Rashmi Sanghi, a research scientist at the LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, found organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues in human breast milk. When other researchers analysed the blood samples of women with breast cancer in Jaipur and compared it to blood samples of women without breast cancer, they found significantly higher levels of pesticide residues in the samples from women suffering from cancer.
Even as we have an increasing disease burden due to chemicals and pollutants, there is an attempt to push GMOs despite the serious health risks they pose. We need to assess these risks on the basis of the Precautionary Principle. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm when scientific investigation has thrown data and evidence of health risks. Suppressing research on risk assessment of GMOs does not make the risks go away. A “don’t look, don’t see” policy does not make for safety.
The last Indian deserves healthy, nutritious and safe food. That is why we at Navdanya have started the campaign “Know your food, Know your farmer”. Join us, for the sake of earth and for the sake of your health.

© 2012 The Asian Age

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist and eco feminist. She is the founder/director of Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology. She is author of numerous books including, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis; Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply; Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace; and Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Shiva has also served as an adviser to governments in India and abroad as well as NGOs, including the International Forum on Globalization, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and the Third World Network. She has received numerous awards, including 1993 Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) and the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize.
Source:   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/02-9