The Board of Directors of farmer-run OSGATA has voted unanimously to withdraw as a member of Organic Trade Association and to terminate OTA's membership in OSGATA over their role in the Stabenow-Roberts GMO Labeling law preemption bill (DARK Act Stabenow-Roberts (S.764).
PRESS RELEASE HERE: Please share our press release with your lists.
ORGANIC FARMER GROUP Dumps ORGANIC
TRADE ASSOCIATION
OSGATA Cites
Betrayal Over Monsanto-Backed GMO LABELING BILL
Washington,
ME, July 13, 2016 – By a unanimous vote of its Board of
Directors, the organic farmer-controlled Organic Seed Growers and Trade
Association (OSGATA) has withdrawn its membership from the Organic Trade Association (OTA). OSGATA’s
decision was prompted by OTA’s duplicity
towards organic farmers and consumers when a small number of OTA board members endorsed a dangerous Senate bill
that would immediately preempt existing strong state GMO Labeling laws that are
widely supported by the Organic community and ninety percent of consumers.
Biotech
giant Monsanto is universally recognized within the Organic community as
organic’s greatest threat. Recent revelations have made clear
that the OTA has created numerous close partnerships with Monsanto including
intensive lobbying efforts by the notorious biotech-linked lobbyist Podesta
Group on behalf of the deal brokered by Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts
(R-KS). The Stabenow-Roberts
(S.764) is a Senate bill – backed by industrial agriculture and large food
conglomerates and whose primary intent are nullifying of historic mandatory GMO
Labeling laws passed by huge margins in Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and Alaska
legislatures and relieving multinational food companies of the requirement to
clearly label products that were produced by genetic
engineering. OTA support for
the Monsanto-backed bill proved essential for passage. Last week
Stabenow-Roberts passed in the Senate by a narrow four-vote margin of victory
on a vote of 63-30.
“It’s
important for the world to understand that it was the Organic Trade Association that killed our state
GMO labeling laws by backing Monsanto’s Stabenow-Roberts bill,” said Maine
organic seed farmer and longtime OSGATA President,
Jim Gerritsen. “It’s clear that Organic Trade Association has
come under the control of a small group of lobbyists controlled by giant-food
corporations that also own organic brands. In an effort to protect their
own bottom lines and those of their parent companies, the reckless actions of
these large parent-owned organic companies threaten the survival of organic
farmers and the organic community we have all worked so hard for decades to
build. The Organic Trade Association can
no longer be trusted and it’s clear that organic farmers can no longer condone
this dubious trade association’s troubling behavior. Effective
immediately, the farmer-run organic seed trade group OSGATA resigns from OTA and we call on other honest organic
organizations and companies to do the same.”
OTA’s efforts
in support of the industry-backed bill included misleading assertions made to
its membership and the public about what the bill would accomplish. These
assertions included false statements that the bill will require mandatory
disclosure of GMO ingredients nationwide and would cover thousands more
products than Vermont’s and other states’ GMO labeling laws. The FDA, Consumers Union, and
numerous others have pointed out that the bill’s definitions, ambiguities, lack
of penalty authority, and other provisions fail to guarantee on-package product
transparency.
Further, OTA’s efforts had the intentional effect of misleading
Senators into believing the bill had the full backing of the organic industry
when the truth was the exact opposite. The OSGATA Board of Directors has terminated OTA’s membership in OSGATA due to violations of OSGATA’s Code of Ethics. OSGATA’sCode of Ethics requires that members refrain
from false or misleading statements to the public and/or conduct that brings
discredit on OSGATA or himself/herself. See, OSGATA Bylaws, Article 8 – Code of Ethics.
“OSGATA is a well-respected farmer-run membership
trade organization dedicated to protecting and developing organic seed for
organic farmers around the world” said Lisa Stokke, OSGATA Board officer and representative from OSGATA-member Food Democracy Now! based
in Iowa. “OTA’s devious actions
constitute serious violations of our Code of Ethics and
dictated that OSGATA immediately terminate
their membership. OSGATA’s withdrawal
from OTA and their termination of membership serves to
completely sever OSGATA from any further
destructive actions by the OTA and the
handful of dishonest corporate lobbyists that falsely represented the organic
industry to our elected officials in Washington DC. It’s important to us
that Congress and the public understand that OTA’s values
and interests do not match nor represent that of the Organic community, including
organic family farmers and the millions of organic consumers who purchase more
than $40 billion of organic food annually based on a relationship of trust,
openness and transparency.”
OSGATAad
been a member of OTA for eight
years. OSGATA’s members had become
distressed in recent years over OTA’s increasingly
divisive behavior on many issues important to organic farmers. In 2015,
by a unanimous vote of its membership, OSGATA members
voted to vigorously oppose OTA’s proposal
for an involuntary tax on organic farmers, known as the “Organic
Checkoff”. OTA continues
to misrepresent its Organic Checkoff proposal to federal officials as having
widespread support among organic farmers. OTA’sfalse
assertions have been strongly challenged by a growing army of vocal opponents.
OSGATA gained
notoriety in 2011 when it became lead plaintiff in the landmark federal
lawsuit, OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, in which organic farmers and
their allies fought to challenge the validity of Monsanto’s transgenic seed
patents and sought court protection for farmers from potential Monsanto patent
infringement litigation should Monsanto’s patented seed trespass onto and
contaminate their organic crops.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., rewarded farmers with a
partial victory when it held that Monsanto is judicially estopped from suing
any farmer whose crops inadvertently become contaminated by trace amounts of
Monsanto’s patented seed technology.
“In OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, we showed we weren’t afraid
to stand up to the biggest patent bully on the face of the planet,” said farmer
and OSGATA board member, Lyn Howe of Beach Road Farm
in Hawaii and acting Director for Hawaii Seed Growers Network. “Now that
it’s become clear OTA has teamed up with
Monsanto and is endangering everything that we believe in, this is the last
straw. It’s high time we leave OTA behind and
join and work with others who understand organic farming is the right way to
farm and the wave of the future.”
Organic
Seed Growers and Trade Association
OSGATA is a farmer-controlled national non-profit membership
trade organization of certified organic farmers, certified organic seed
companies, organic seed professionals, affiliate organizations and individuals
dedicated to the advancement of certified organic seed. OSGATA is
committed to protecting, promoting and developing the organic seed trade and
its growers, thereby assuming that the organic community has access to
excellent quality certified organic seed, free of genetic contaminants and
adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture.
Contact:
Lisa Stokke, Secretary, OSGATA Board of Directors
PO Box 362 Washington, ME 04574
Jim Gerritsen, President
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
Washington, Maine
207)429-9765 office
NY Times. The Elders of Organic Farming.
|
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
OSGATA (ORGANIC SEED GROWERS and TRADE ASSOCIATION) DUMPS OTA OVER DARK Act
Monday, July 11, 2016
US NON-LEGISLATURE OFFERS USA NON-LABEL GMO LABELS
http://tinyurl.com/gueho68
Farm and Food: The Land of Non
· For years, we Americans have been perfecting the art of non-action action. It began about a generation ago with the non-apology apology: “If I offended you, I apologize.” Later we moved on to the non-committal commitment: “I’ll be there unless I get a better offer.”
Now, courtesy of Congress, our non-legislating legislature, we might soon be buying non-label labeled food.
Congress reached this state of higher non-ness by carefully noting what the American public overwhelmingly and repeatedly has said it wants—country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat and poultry and the labeling of all food that contains ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—before choosing to do just the opposite.
In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives tackled the public’s GMO labeling demand by punting; it voted 275-to-150 in favor of voluntary GMO labeling. In the Land of Non, voluntary labeling means, of course, almost everyone will voluntarily not label food that contains GMOs.
Not to be outdone by the non-labeling labelers in the House, the U.S. Senate finally awakened to act on June 29 when it easily approved (68-to-29) a procedural vote to move its complicated GMO labeling bill to a full Senate vote.
Unlike the House’s voluntary non-labeling standard, though, the Senate bill contains a mandatory labeling standard—albeit one with more dodges in it than a used car lot. The shiniest clunker is something the Senate chose to call the “bioengineered food disclosure system.”
The name alone is certain evidence that Big Food’s lawyers and Big Ag’s lobbyists have already washed, rinsed, and waxed the pending bill to ensure it contains the highest possible level of effective ineffectiveness. With this outside help, anti-government government insiders reshaped the Senate bill into pure shapelessness.
For example, under the Senate language, large food companies have three options to label any GMO ingredients contained in their products.
First, explains the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the companies can place a “barcode or QR code”—a quick response code—on its food labels. Those codes, however, “require consumers (to) use a smartphone to find more information about a product.”
So no smart phone, no food info; that’s so dumb it’s clever.
Second, a company can use “a symbol on the package” to denote its contents are GMO. What symbol? The one “to be created by U.S. Department of Agriculture.” That shouldn’t take long, eh?
Or, third, the food company can place “an actual on-package statement that the product contains GMOs.” A simple, uncomplicated label? Brilliant!
Critics of the Senate bill quickly point out, however, that most food companies will choose the first two, less transparent labeling loopholes for non-labeling labels and few, if any, would choose to openly label.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also, sees trouble in the Senate bill because it gives new food labeling authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture “that is otherwise under FDA’s sole regulatory jurisdiction…”
For example, explains a FDA “Technical Assistance memo” that dissects the Senate Bill, “We note that (a) provision to allow information regarding the GE,” or genetically engineered, “content of food to be present only in an electronically accessible form”—the barcode and QR code exceptions in the bill—“and not on the package label would be in tension with FDA’s statute and regulations, which require disclosures on food labels.”
Tension, indeed.
Also, notes the FDA memo, “The definition of ‘bioengineering” used in the Senate bill “would be somewhat narrow” and likely mean that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill…”
That’s not an accident. It is, in fact, exactly what you would do if you want to write a non-labeling label law that, first, doesn’t conform to current law and, second, will likely never become law.
But that’s the trick in running a non-legislating legislature, right? If you actually do anything, it must—by definition—end up doing exactly nothing.
The Farm and Food File is published weekly through the U.S. and Canada. Source material, past columns and contact information are posted at www.farmandfoodfile.com.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
NO HEARINGS, NO TESTIMONY, VERMONT DEMANDS STATES RIGHTS TO LABEL GMOs
|
Vermont advocates slam
US Senate approval of federal GMO bill
|
Federal bill caters to the whims of the corporate food industry
rather than actually providing consumers information
|
EXCERPT: Rural Vermont
Executive Director Andrea Stander [said:] “This bill had no hearings. It had no
witnesses. It had no testimony. They didn’t allow any amendments. I mean it’s
just an outrage. I mean over 90 percent of Americans in poll after poll after
poll have said they want this information and they want it in a simple
accessible way. What the Senate passed last night does none of that.”
—
—
Vermont advocates slam
US Senate approval of federal GMO bill
By Pat Bradley
WAMC, 8 July 2016
http://wamc.org/post/vermont-advocates-slam-us-senate-approval-federal-gmo-bill#stream/0
Late Thursday the U.S. Senate approved federal GMO labeling legislation and moved the bill to the House for consideration. In Vermont, where the first-in-the-nation mandatory GMO labeling law went into effect last Friday, advocates say the federal bill caters to the whims of the corporate food industry rather than actually providing consumers information.
Senators voted 63-30 to move the measure proposed by Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow and Kansas Republican Pat Roberts to the House. The bill would allow food companies to label foods with GMO’s using words, a symbol or an electronic QR code readable by smartphone.
During floor statements Thursday, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy called the measure a farce, and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal said it was neither practical, logical nor fair to consumers.
In Vermont, whose mandatory GMO labeling law became effective July 1st, proponents are incensed by the Senate vote.
Rural Vermont Executive Director Andrea Stander quips that she was tempted to throw her computer against the wall as she watched the Senate debate. She is outraged by what she calls misinformation and manipulation by corporate food industry. “I think it’s bad on many, many levels. Some of it is the content of the bill which has so many loopholes that even the FDA has said that very few products will end up being labeled. But I think what’s more egregious is the process. This bill had no hearings. It had no witnesses. It had no testimony. They didn’t allow any amendments. I mean it’s just an outrage. I mean over 90 percent of Americans in poll after poll after poll have said they want this information and they want it in a simple accessible way. What the Senate passed last night does none of that.”
Vermont Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Paul Burns found claims by supporters of the legislation that it’s the first time such information will be available galling. “Labels are already being placed on food products across the nation because of Vermont’s law. And second under the federal scheme put forward through this bill there will never be any labels on food products that humans can read. At least not if that food manufacturer chooses not to put such a label on the product. And that means I think that anybody who claims that this federal bill will require labels and give consumers good clear information is simply not telling the truth.”
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont Policy Advisor Maddie Monty is disappointed, angry and frustrated. She believes the Senate voted in favor of corporations and food manufacturers rather than consumers. “Our biggest issues with this legislation was really the Q.R. code 1-800 number options are a way for manufacturers who don't want to divulge this information to bury it while still claiming that they're providing that information to consumers. Obviously we’re upset that it preempts Vermont’s law which went into effect exactly a week ago today and sets a much stronger standard for mandatory labeling. The definition of genetic engineering or bioengineering under this bill is very narrow and actually a lot of analysts have said that this bill would actually exclude a lot of products. And one of the major red flags for us is that it does not come with any federal penalties for violations.”
Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic Acting Director Laura Murphy notes that if the measure passes the House and the president signs it, there would still be some things that would play out before Vermont’s law would actually be preempted. “There are likely to be some questions about the scope and extent of preemption the way this federal bill is drafted. What exactly would be preempted in Vermont? And then the other thing, and I think this could happen, is there might actually be a legal challenge filed against the federal law and so then we would see how that played out.”
Calls to the Grocery Manufacturers of America were not returned in time for broadcast. The organization issued a statement after the Senate’s preliminary vote calling the legislation a “…commonsense solution before the harmful effects of Vermont’s labeling law impact the nation’s entire food supply chain.”
__________________________________________________________
WAMC, 8 July 2016
http://wamc.org/post/vermont-advocates-slam-us-senate-approval-federal-gmo-bill#stream/0
Late Thursday the U.S. Senate approved federal GMO labeling legislation and moved the bill to the House for consideration. In Vermont, where the first-in-the-nation mandatory GMO labeling law went into effect last Friday, advocates say the federal bill caters to the whims of the corporate food industry rather than actually providing consumers information.
Senators voted 63-30 to move the measure proposed by Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow and Kansas Republican Pat Roberts to the House. The bill would allow food companies to label foods with GMO’s using words, a symbol or an electronic QR code readable by smartphone.
During floor statements Thursday, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy called the measure a farce, and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal said it was neither practical, logical nor fair to consumers.
In Vermont, whose mandatory GMO labeling law became effective July 1st, proponents are incensed by the Senate vote.
Rural Vermont Executive Director Andrea Stander quips that she was tempted to throw her computer against the wall as she watched the Senate debate. She is outraged by what she calls misinformation and manipulation by corporate food industry. “I think it’s bad on many, many levels. Some of it is the content of the bill which has so many loopholes that even the FDA has said that very few products will end up being labeled. But I think what’s more egregious is the process. This bill had no hearings. It had no witnesses. It had no testimony. They didn’t allow any amendments. I mean it’s just an outrage. I mean over 90 percent of Americans in poll after poll after poll have said they want this information and they want it in a simple accessible way. What the Senate passed last night does none of that.”
Vermont Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Paul Burns found claims by supporters of the legislation that it’s the first time such information will be available galling. “Labels are already being placed on food products across the nation because of Vermont’s law. And second under the federal scheme put forward through this bill there will never be any labels on food products that humans can read. At least not if that food manufacturer chooses not to put such a label on the product. And that means I think that anybody who claims that this federal bill will require labels and give consumers good clear information is simply not telling the truth.”
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont Policy Advisor Maddie Monty is disappointed, angry and frustrated. She believes the Senate voted in favor of corporations and food manufacturers rather than consumers. “Our biggest issues with this legislation was really the Q.R. code 1-800 number options are a way for manufacturers who don't want to divulge this information to bury it while still claiming that they're providing that information to consumers. Obviously we’re upset that it preempts Vermont’s law which went into effect exactly a week ago today and sets a much stronger standard for mandatory labeling. The definition of genetic engineering or bioengineering under this bill is very narrow and actually a lot of analysts have said that this bill would actually exclude a lot of products. And one of the major red flags for us is that it does not come with any federal penalties for violations.”
Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic Acting Director Laura Murphy notes that if the measure passes the House and the president signs it, there would still be some things that would play out before Vermont’s law would actually be preempted. “There are likely to be some questions about the scope and extent of preemption the way this federal bill is drafted. What exactly would be preempted in Vermont? And then the other thing, and I think this could happen, is there might actually be a legal challenge filed against the federal law and so then we would see how that played out.”
Calls to the Grocery Manufacturers of America were not returned in time for broadcast. The organization issued a statement after the Senate’s preliminary vote calling the legislation a “…commonsense solution before the harmful effects of Vermont’s labeling law impact the nation’s entire food supply chain.”
__________________________________________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Thursday, July 7, 2016
SANDERS STANDS TALL FOR 93% OF US DEMANDING CLEAR ON PACKAGE #GMO LABEL
____________________________ org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_ Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/ 276951472985?ref=nf
URGENT ACTION! Call Senators 888-897-0174 NO on DARK ACT!
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  View This Email On the Web | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damn the Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead on GMO Labeling. Dear Kat,
Eager to do Monsanto’s bidding, the U.S. Senate yesterday voted 65-32 to limit debate on the Roberts-Stabenow bill, a federal GMO labeling bill that is unenforceable, full of loopholes and exemptions, and allows companies to hide information about GMOs behind QR codes that are inaccessible to at least a third of Americans who don’t own smartphones.
The Senate is expected to hold a final vote tonight to pass the bill, which would send it back to the House (which passed its own version last July), and ultimately to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law.
TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 888-897-0174 to tell them what you think of their votes! Calls are the fastest, and most effective way to get your message through to Congress.
The Senate needed 60 votes yesterday in order to limit debate on the Senate version of DARK Act. But the bill now needs only 51 votes to pass the Senate and move on to the House.
Both the Senate and House versions are intended to overturn Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law which took effect July 1.
We’d be lying if we said the chances of stopping this bill are good—they aren’t.But that shouldn’t stop us from going full throttle to try to win over more Senators, and even call on Obama to veto this bill if it gets that far.
At the very least, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor that the measure hasn't been fully vetted, the Roberts-Stabenow bill deserves a full debate:
"It's not fair to get on an important piece of legislation and not have the opportunity to" have hearings on the measure and offer amendments. We must not stand for the Republican leader jamming this bill through the Senate."
TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 888-897-0174 to tell them what you think of their votes! Calls are the fastest, and most effective way to get your message through to Congress.
Scroll down to see you your Senators voted. If they voted against this awful bill, please thank them! If they voted for it, please let them know that QR codes are not labels, and a bill that exempts most of the common GMO ingredients isn’t acceptable.
Yesterday, OCA and many of our allies in the movement worked up until the last minute to convince more Senators to reject this latest version of the DARK Act. We made calls, we visited Senate home district and Washington offices.
We even staged a protest on the Senate floor, dropping 2,000 $1 bills to show our anger over how Monsanto’s money has corrupted the democratic process.
Some of our efforts paid off. Maine Senators Collins and King, who voted for the bill in a “test” vote on June 29, voted against the bill this time, after hearing from hundreds of their constituents who don’t want Maine’s GMO labeling bill overturned. If you live in Maine, please call today to thank Sens. Collins and King and ask them to vote NO again on the final vote.
Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) also saw the light, and voted against the DARK Act yesterday—if you live in Florida or Nebraska, please show these Senators some love today!
But we also had some disappointing “flippers” yesterday, including Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.) and Bob Menendez (N.J.) who opposed the Roberts-Stabenow bill on June 29, but yesterday supported Monsanto, not consumers. If you live in Virginia or New Jersey, please call today and urge your Senators to support your right to know!
To reach any of these Senators, call 888-897-0174 and you will be connected to your Senator.
For everyone else, please scroll down for the vote count. There were 65 “yeas” and 32 “nays”. We’ve also included the amount of money each Senator has received from agribusiness over the course of their years in the Senate. The average agribusiness contribution for “yes” voters ($886,838) is more than twice as much as the average for "no" voters ($440,765). TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators TODAY! Thank your Senators who voted “No”. “Spank” your Senators who voted “Yes”. Call 888-897-0174. Here are some talking points you can use when you call:
I don’t want to have to pull out a phone and scan a QR code in order to know what I’m buying. The Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill would kill the Vermont law that labels GMO foods as “produced with genetic engineering.” Vermont's law is working. GMOs are being labeled. Food prices are staying the same. The labels are being used nationwide. It exempts nearly all GMOs from labeling. It would take at least two years to take effect. And, it’s essentially voluntary because there would be no enforcement for non-compliance. At the very least, this bill deserves a full debate.
Tally for July 6, 2016 cloture vote
NO Votes (the "good guys"):
Total donations from agribusiness to Senators who voted NO: $12,212,251; Average donation: $440,765
YES Votes (the "bad guys"):
Total donations from agribusiness to Senators who voted YES: $57,644,458; Average donation: $886,838.
Not voting:
(Senators and their votes, listed by state instead of alphabetically, here).
TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators at 888-897-0174 to tell them what you think of their votes! Ask them to vote NO on the Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill!
Thanks!
Alexis, Katherine and the OCA team
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)