Will Clinton VP Pick Be 'Pronounced Middle Finger' to Millions Who Voted for Bernie?
Appropriate progressive response to inadequate choice, says one Democratic delegate, 'would be expressions of outrage and nonviolent protest, from the convention floor in Philadelphia to communities across the country.'Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently joined Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. (Photo: UPI/Barcroft Images)
Hillary Clinton's pick for vice president, now expected this Friday or Saturday, will tell prospective Democratic voters much about her attitude towards the progressive base of the party, the ideological drive of her general election campaign, and the manner of her potential presidency.While a "conventional" pick seems increasingly likely, critics warn the perils of such a choice could be disastrous—both for her campaign and, ultimately, the country and the planet."Selection of a corporate militarist—flacking for Wall Street, pursuing the despoiling of the environment and promoting vast militarism—would underscore Hillary Clinton's commitment to destructive policies. Whatever the importance of platform planks and promises from podiums, the VP selection is the one decision that Clinton can't go back on."
—Norman Solomon, co-founder of RootsAction and Sanders delegateWith the notion of party "unity" on edge, asCommon Dreams reported earlier this week, many potential voters inspired by the bold campaign of Bernie Sanders will be greatly disappointed if Clinton goes with someone likeSen. Tim Kaine of Virginia orSecretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack—currently the most likely choices according to the New York Times,Washington Post, and others.Norman Solomon, co-founder of RootsAction.org and national coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network, told Common Dreams the signal such a selection would send to Sanders' delegates like himself would be worse than not good.Choosing someone like Vilsack or Kaine, Solomon wrote in an email, "would be a very pronounced middle finger to the 13 million people who voted for Bernie."
And what should the response be if Clinton makes such a choice?"The appropriate progressive response to Vilsack or Kaine on the ticket would be expressions of outrage and nonviolent protest, from the convention floor in Philadelphia to communities across the country," said Solomon. "Selection of a corporate militarist—flacking for Wall Street, pursuing the despoiling of the environment and promoting vast militarism—would underscore Hillary Clinton's commitment to destructive policies. Whatever the importance of platform planks and promises from podiums, the VP selection is the one decision that Clinton can't go back on. Her choice for the VP slot will be quite illuminating."According to the Post:Kaine has been a favorite for the job for months and is the name most often mentioned by Democrats as the front-runner. He and Vilsack share many professional and political attributes, notably their governing experience. Both fit Clinton’s ideal of low-key, loyal effectiveness, people who know both men said. Vilsack carries the additional quality of a long-standing personal friendship with Clinton.
Two Democrats described [Labor Secretary Thomas] Perez as a solid third choice, but others cautioned that he may not be in the same category as Vilsack and Kaine. Several Democrats emphasized that the fact that Kaine and Vilsack appear to be the leading contenders does not preclude Clinton’s continuing to weigh her choices from a larger list of contenders.And CNN reports:Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack have emerged as leading contenders after a rigorous vetting process, Democrats close to the selection believe, but they are not the only two prospects still in contention."The conventional wisdom in this case seems likely to be right," one Democrat close to Clinton told CNN, believing Kaine has the upper hand but cautioning that Clinton could still deliver a surprise.The Times was among outlets, citing unnamed sources familiar with the deliberations, reporting that Clinton is interested in someone with deep "national security experience," suggesting that a candidate's readiness to step in as commander-in-chief would outweigh considerations of experience on domestic policy matters. The newspaper said that James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander of NATO, was now on the short-list alongside Kaine, Vilsack, and Perez.While Secretary Perez was struck by critique in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Tom Philpott, writing for Mother Jones, offered a devastating exploration of Vilsack's record when it comes to food and agriculture policy.Other people still being mentioned include Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Housing and Urban Development secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts."[Clinton] must embrace the populist moment and the electorate’s yearning for change if she is to fend off Trump’s insurgent challenge. That’s not just the smartest course. In the end, it’s also the safest."
—Richard Eskow, Campaign for America's FutureAmong all those believed to be under consideration, only Warren and Brown stand out as being firmly aligned—specifically on economic policy and issues related to labor and international trade—with the populist agenda put forth by Sanders.For his part, however, Solomon expressed doubt that either is still under serious consideration."Warren—and to a lesser extent Brown—would be a nod from Clinton to the progressive wing of the party," he said. "Warren in particular seems to be quite a longshot; her inclusion in the Clinton campaign-generated speculation is likely nothing more than a sop to make progressives feel like they sort of matter as part of the triangulating mentality that routinely prevails in Clinton calculations, a routine that the Bernie campaign has disrupted."However, increasing evidence that she may ultimately go with a "safe" vice-presidential pick—someone from within the Establishment circle of the party—is lamentable for progressive advocates like Richard Eskow of the Campaign for America's Future. On Wednesday Eskow wrote rumors circling about Vilsack, Warner or Kaine should be deeply worrisome to Democrats. "In this political climate," he writes, "a search for 'safety' could put her candidacy in serious danger."Eskow explains:Kaine and Vilsack have forged bland political profiles that lack progressive fire or conspicuous leadership. Both supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the latest in a series of job-destroying and corporation-empowering trade deals. So did Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.
Clinton claims to oppose the TPP, but she has a credibility challenge on the subject. She helped negotiate the deal as secretary of state and frequently spoke in favor of it before running for president. Prospects like Kaine, Vilsack, and Warner are liabilities for a ticket that must confront Trump’s faux populism on trade.Warner is also a longtime advocate for destructive budget cuts. He backed the unpopular and impractical “Bowles-Simpson” fiscal plan that included cuts to Social Security, pushed austerity economics measures as part of the Senate’s misguided and self-promoting “Gang of Six,” and even urged business elites to get more involved in politics – at a time when we need campaign reform to reduce their political power.That may be an effective way to flatter rich donors, but it is a poor way for a Democrat to win votes in 2016.Meanwhile, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America Donna Smith, in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Tuesday, said Clinton's decision to ignore the intensity of support generated by Sanders would be a grave mistake.Assessing the specific shortcomings of Gov. Hickenlooper, Smith said that for Clinton to choose him "as a running mate would be another signal of the disconnect the DNC has with a large segment of its base – a very vocal, engaged segment of the base."If she makes a corporate-friendly choice like Hickenlooper, Smith writes, Clinton would severely "weaken the modest progressive gains made during the DNC’s platform struggle and set the tone for what [her] presidency might value."Eskow shares those concerns and warns that for Clinton to gravitate towards what is euphemistically referred to as the "center" of the political spectrum would be a disastrous decision. "Hillary Clinton needs to show voters that she can make bold choices," he argues. "She must embrace the populist moment and the electorate’s yearning for change if she is to fend off Trump’s insurgent challenge. That’s not just the smartest course. In the end, it’s also the safest."Unfortunately, said Solomon, the corporate media—"and perhaps the Clinton campaign"—appear largely checked-out when it comes to understanding the mood of most Sanders' delegates ahead of next week's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. A recent survey of approximately 1,200 delegates pledged to Sanders conducted by RootsAction showed that more than 7 in 10 say that Clinton's VP choice is either "very important" or "important" to them. In addition, many expressed willingness to "publicly denounce" or "protest on the convention floor" if their level of disappointment with the VP candidate warrants it.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Thursday, July 21, 2016
NIGHTMARE ON PENNSYLVANIA AVE's TRUE #GMO DREAM TEAM COMING TO THE DNC?
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
BIG AG-EPA HAVE LIED ABOUT TOXIC CHEMICAL COCKTAIL DAMAGE FOR DECADES
Damning Probe Finds EPA 'Turning Blind Eye' to Toxic Chemical Cocktails
Despite the EPA's claims, information on dangerous synergistic effects is publicly available. In fact, the agro-giants collected it themselves.
"It’s alarming to see just how common it’s been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the report. (Photo: Chafer Machinery/cc/flickr)
While the use of one toxic chemical—on our foods, lawns, and elsewhere—has its inherent risks, scientists warn that the combination of two or more such ingredients in common pesticides could have an even more noxious impact, one which is commonly overlooked.
In fact, a investigation released Tuesday by the environmental watchdog Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that over the past six years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products that contain these so-called "synergistic" compounds, effectively "increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants."
As CBD explains, "[s]ynergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects," turning "what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm."
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides. With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?" asked Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails(pdf).
One toxic cocktail that has gotten some attention is Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo, which contains two of the most commonly used pesticides in the nation: 2,4-D and glyphosate. The EPA approved the product in October 2014 butrevoked the license after discovering a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database that warned of synergistic toxicity to plants.
Following the lead of the EPA, Donley analyzed the patent database for other recent pesticide products approved by the EPA for agrochemical giants, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
According to Donley, among the key findings are:
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said.
"It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves," he added.
Andre Leu, an organic farmer based in Australia and president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), has done extensive research on the subject of synergistic compounds.
In Leu's 2014 report The Myths of Safe Pesticides (pdf), he states unequivocally that it is a "myth" that pesticide formulations are "rigorously tested."
Leu writes: "Given that the other chemical ingredients are chemically active as they are added to the formations to make the active ingredient work more effectively, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the toxicity of thew hole formulation lacks scientific credibility. The limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products shows that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure single active ingredient."
Donley said that "the EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects. Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."
In fact, a investigation released Tuesday by the environmental watchdog Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that over the past six years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products that contain these so-called "synergistic" compounds, effectively "increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants."
As CBD explains, "[s]ynergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects," turning "what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm."
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides. With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?" asked Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails(pdf).
One toxic cocktail that has gotten some attention is Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo, which contains two of the most commonly used pesticides in the nation: 2,4-D and glyphosate. The EPA approved the product in October 2014 butrevoked the license after discovering a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database that warned of synergistic toxicity to plants.
Following the lead of the EPA, Donley analyzed the patent database for other recent pesticide products approved by the EPA for agrochemical giants, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
According to Donley, among the key findings are:
- 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
- 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the United States, including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said.
"It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves," he added.
Andre Leu, an organic farmer based in Australia and president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), has done extensive research on the subject of synergistic compounds.
In Leu's 2014 report The Myths of Safe Pesticides (pdf), he states unequivocally that it is a "myth" that pesticide formulations are "rigorously tested."
Leu writes: "Given that the other chemical ingredients are chemically active as they are added to the formations to make the active ingredient work more effectively, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the toxicity of thew hole formulation lacks scientific credibility. The limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products shows that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure single active ingredient."
Donley said that "the EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects. Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Thursday, July 14, 2016
CONGRESS THROWS 90% OF THEIR VOTERS UNDER THE BIG FOOD-BIG AG #GMO MEGABUS
In
Victory for Food and Biotech Industries, Congress Passes DARK Act 2.0
"We urge
President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what
they are eating by rejecting this bill."
by
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
GMO
labeling proponents hold a sign during a march in San Francisco in 2013.
(Photo: Steve Rhodes/flickr/cc)
President Barack Obama
is poised to sign the so-called DARK Act, a GMO labeling bill critics say notches a win for
the food and biotech industries but will still leave consumers in the dark
about whether or not their food contains genetically modified ingredients.
After the legislation
easily passed in the U.S. House on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal described it as "a victory for food
companies," noting that it "will supersede tougher measures passed by
one state [Vermont] and considered in others."
As The Hill reports:
The bill, which passed
by a 306 to 117 vote, directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a
national labeling standard that allows food producers to choose how they want
to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients.
Under the legislation,
manufacturers will be able to use text, symbols or a QR code that consumers
must scan with a smartphone to relay the information.
As such, BloombergPolitics reports,
Under the legislation,
which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co., Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may
still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically
modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.
A roll call of the
vote is here.
It passed the Senate
last week, and now heads to President Obama, who'sindicated he will sign it —against the
wishes of many food transparency advocacy groups.
Gary Ruskin,
co-director of pro-labeling group U.S. Right to Know, urged Obama to veto the
legislation, saying in a press statement that it "is a sweetheart
deal for the food and agrichemical industries, who want to keep consumers
guessing about the contents of their food."
Similarly criticizing
the legislation on Thursday was Ronnie Cummins, international director of
Organic Consumers Association, who said in a statement, "Congress trampled
on consumer and states' rights, choosing instead to serve the interests of Monsanto
and the Grocery Manufacturers Association."
"This bill was
written bought and paid for by corporations who clearly have something to
hide," he continued. "Replacing clear, on-package labels with a
system that is convoluted, inconvenient, and discriminates against the elderly,
the poor and anyone without a smartphone or internet access is inexcusable,
especially when consumers in 64 other countries have the right to that same
information."
There's also the fact
that the majority of Americans support labeling of GMOs, Wenonah Hauter,
executive director of Food & Water Watch, says.
She added, "If
this bill becomes law, the food and biotech industries win what are essentially
voluntary requirements. This so-called 'compromise' does not mandate recalls,
penalties or fines for noncompliance, and many loopholes in the bill will
likely leave many GMO ingredients exempt from any labeling requirements. The
bill gives companies the option to use discriminatory and cumbersome QR codes
that require a smartphone to access basic information about the food on store
shelves."
"We urge
President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what
they are eating by rejecting this bill. This is his final chance to get it
right when it comes to food policies that protect people over corporations. He
can do just that by vetoing the DARK Act," Hauter said.
Civil rights activist
Rev. Jesse Jackson added his voice to the chorus of opposition by sending Obama
a letter (pdf) on Thursday urging him to
veto the measure.
Echoing some of
Cummins and Hauter's concerns, Jackson writes that the "law's principal
thrust is to rely on QR codes which shoppers will scan to gain product
information relative to GMOs. However, 100,000,000 Americans, most of them
poor, people of color and elderly either do not own a smart phone or an iPhone
to scan the QR code or live in an area of poor internet connectivity."
"As someone who,
like yourself, has traversed the rocky upward path to social and economic
justice on behalf of those at the other side of society's great divides,
racial, social and economic," he added, "I want to call to your
attention serious inequities on GMO labeling legislation coming soon to your
desk."
Carey Gillam,
journalist and research director for U.S. Right to Know,reported last month on how the
legislation has "blown wide open deep divisions running through the U.S.
organic industry."
The Organic Seed
Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) announcedWednesday that it withdrew its
membership from the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), decrying the
"duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers" when OTA signed off
on the bill, despite the fact
that it "would
immediately preempt existing strong state GMO labeling laws that are widely
supported by the organic community and ninety percent of consumers."
CONGRESS THROWS 90% OF THEIR VOTERS UNDER THE BIG FOOD-BIG AG #GMO MEGABUS
In
Victory for Food and Biotech Industries, Congress Passes DARK Act 2.0
"We urge
President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what
they are eating by rejecting this bill."
by
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
GMO
labeling proponents hold a sign during a march in San Francisco in 2013.
(Photo: Steve Rhodes/flickr/cc)
President Barack Obama
is poised to sign the so-called DARK Act, a GMO labeling bill critics say notches a win for
the food and biotech industries but will still leave consumers in the dark
about whether or not their food contains genetically modified ingredients.
After the legislation
easily passed in the U.S. House on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal described it as "a victory for food
companies," noting that it "will supersede tougher measures passed by
one state [Vermont] and considered in others."
As The Hill reports:
The bill, which passed
by a 306 to 117 vote, directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a
national labeling standard that allows food producers to choose how they want
to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients.
Under the legislation,
manufacturers will be able to use text, symbols or a QR code that consumers
must scan with a smartphone to relay the information.
As such, BloombergPolitics reports,
Under the legislation,
which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co., Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may
still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically
modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.
A roll call of the
vote is here.
It passed the Senate
last week, and now heads to President Obama, who'sindicated he will sign it —against the
wishes of many food transparency advocacy groups.
Gary Ruskin,
co-director of pro-labeling group U.S. Right to Know, urged Obama to veto the
legislation, saying in a press statement that it "is a sweetheart
deal for the food and agrichemical industries, who want to keep consumers
guessing about the contents of their food."
Similarly criticizing
the legislation on Thursday was Ronnie Cummins, international director of
Organic Consumers Association, who said in a statement, "Congress trampled
on consumer and states' rights, choosing instead to serve the interests of Monsanto
and the Grocery Manufacturers Association."
"This bill was
written bought and paid for by corporations who clearly have something to
hide," he continued. "Replacing clear, on-package labels with a
system that is convoluted, inconvenient, and discriminates against the elderly,
the poor and anyone without a smartphone or internet access is inexcusable,
especially when consumers in 64 other countries have the right to that same
information."
There's also the fact
that the majority of Americans support labeling of GMOs, Wenonah Hauter,
executive director of Food & Water Watch, says.
She added, "If
this bill becomes law, the food and biotech industries win what are essentially
voluntary requirements. This so-called 'compromise' does not mandate recalls,
penalties or fines for noncompliance, and many loopholes in the bill will
likely leave many GMO ingredients exempt from any labeling requirements. The
bill gives companies the option to use discriminatory and cumbersome QR codes
that require a smartphone to access basic information about the food on store
shelves."
"We urge
President Obama to remember his campaign promise to let consumers know what
they are eating by rejecting this bill. This is his final chance to get it
right when it comes to food policies that protect people over corporations. He
can do just that by vetoing the DARK Act," Hauter said.
Civil rights activist
Rev. Jesse Jackson added his voice to the chorus of opposition by sending Obama
a letter (pdf) on Thursday urging him to
veto the measure.
Echoing some of
Cummins and Hauter's concerns, Jackson writes that the "law's principal
thrust is to rely on QR codes which shoppers will scan to gain product
information relative to GMOs. However, 100,000,000 Americans, most of them
poor, people of color and elderly either do not own a smart phone or an iPhone
to scan the QR code or live in an area of poor internet connectivity."
"As someone who,
like yourself, has traversed the rocky upward path to social and economic
justice on behalf of those at the other side of society's great divides,
racial, social and economic," he added, "I want to call to your
attention serious inequities on GMO labeling legislation coming soon to your
desk."
Carey Gillam,
journalist and research director for U.S. Right to Know,reported last month on how the
legislation has "blown wide open deep divisions running through the U.S.
organic industry."
The Organic Seed
Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) announcedWednesday that it withdrew its
membership from the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), decrying the
"duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers" when OTA signed off
on the bill, despite the fact
that it "would
immediately preempt existing strong state GMO labeling laws that are widely
supported by the organic community and ninety percent of consumers."
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
CONSUMER-REJECTED NON-LABELING #GMO LABEL BILL S.764 MOVES SOON TO POTUS
Obama Ready to Sign Food-Label Bill Consumer Groups Find Suspect
The White House plans to support legislation creating a national labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified organisms even though consumer groups criticize the bill for allowing information to live behind special codes, and for allowing an exemption for meat and eggs.
“While there is broad consensus that foods from genetically engineered crops are safe, we appreciate the bipartisan effort to address consumers’ interest in knowing more about their food, including whether it includes ingredients from genetically engineered crops,” White House spokeswoman Katie Hill said in an e-mail."We look forward to tracking its progress in the House and anticipate the President would sign it in its current form.”
The Senate-passed labeling bill, S. 764, is to be taken up in the House this week. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Republican Mike Conaway of Texas , has signaled his approval, making it more likely the proposal will pass the chamber and end up on Obama’s desk.
Under the legislation, which has been pushed for by companies including Monsanto Co. , Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups including the National Corn Growers Association, consumers may still find it hard to figure out if the food they are buying is genetically modified, leading opponents to dub the bill the DARK Act.
The law doesn’t mandate printing “GMO” on the exterior, instead offering three options for disclosure: text on the packaging, a symbol, or an electronic link that would direct consumers to a website for more information.
Beef, pork, poultry and eggs wouldn’t be subject to labeling, though the deal would cover many other grocery staples including corn flakes and cooking oil. The bill also would tightly define genetic engineering in ways the biotech industry wanted, not including new techniques such as gene editing.
State-imposed labeling requirements would be banned and producers that have secured a “certified organic” designation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be allowed to clearly display a “non-GMO” label on their products.
Vermont Consequence
The push for a nationwide standard is in response to a law that took effect in Vermont on July 1 requiring disclosure of GMO ingredients on food labels. That rule, plus other initiatives in Maine, Connecticut and other states, has food companies and commodity-growers concerned about a patchwork of state laws that would impede commerce, expose them to fines, needlessly scare consumers about safe products and force expensive reformulations of food products to become GMO-free.
“There is too much at stake in the marketplace to let the consequences of the Vermont law linger any longer,” said Richard Wilkins, a Delaware soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, in a statement after the Senate vote.
Coca-Cola Co., the world’s largest soft-drink company, said June 28 it expects to pull some of its beverages from Vermont stores to avoid penalties. General Mills Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Kellogg Co., Conagra Foods Inc. and Mars Inc. have all developed new labels to comply with Vermont, which has defended its law in courts and in Congress, where Vermont Senator Bernie Sandersbriefly threatened to hold up the Senate’s vote on the measure.
The implementation of the law has caused confusion and concern among Vermont retailers and food distributors, said Erin Sigrist, president-elect of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association. And as the state adopts the new rules, there have been worries about shortages of staple items, including things like baby formula.
Food companies also find themselves navigating uncharted waters. Dannon, the leading seller of yogurt in the U.S., sent some Vermont retailers GMO labels and asked for their help applying the stickers "in some situations due to the logistics of distribution," according to the company. Dannon said in April that it would label all of its products in the U.S. for GMOs by December 2017.
But pre-empting Vermont with an industry-friendly law will thwart the goal of helping consumers know where their food comes from, said Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group.
“This bill is a travesty, an undemocratic and discriminatory bill which preempts state laws, while offering no meaningful labeling for GMOs,” said Perls.
Keep up with the race of a lifetime.
By taking disclosure off the physical label, consumers have less-than-ideal access to information some might want to know, said William Lesser, a science and business professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “Many food consumers will simply not take the time needed to inform themselves about the ingredients of the many food items they purchase.”
Still, the Vermont law forced Congress’s hand, he said. in an e-mail. "The implementation of the Vermont mandatory GMO labeling bill on July 1 makes essential some form of federal labeling preemption,” he said. “The likelihood of a hodgepodge of individual state and local labeling laws would be confusing for consumers and costly for the food system, and ultimately consumers."
In the U.S. about 90 percent of alfalfa, cotton, canola, corn, soy, papaya, sugar beets, zucchini and yellow summer squash are genetically modified, according to the Bellingham, Washington-based organization Non-GMO Project.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
MARKET IS RIGHTLY DRIVING FOOD PRODUCERS TO OPT OUT OF #GMOs
http://www.agweb.com/article/
Applegate Farms Moves to Make Its Meat GMO-Free
JULY 13, 2016 08:50 AM
© USDA
Chicken lovers who demand more than the natural, organic, or free-range labels slapped on pretty much everything these days may be happily surprised to find a new product in the supermarket freezer: Applegate Farms has started shipping Non-GMO Project Verified organic chicken nuggets to retailers nationwide.
Sure, we’re talking nuggets here. But pledging to consumers that these U.S. chickens never ate a kernel of corn manipulated by transgenic science signals a significant escalation for Applegate. Just last year, this preeminent purveyor of natural and organic meats promised to eliminate all genetically modified ingredients from production. Now its organic nuggets are the first Applegate item to get the new Non-GMO seal—and they won't be the last. The company is announcingon Wednesday its commitment to guarantee that every one of its products—both organic and natural—is non-GMO, all the way up the supply chain to the animals’ feed.
“We just think people have the right to know what’s in the products they eat,” Applegate President Steven J. Lykken says.
The problem is that Applegate made its pledge in a country that's embraced GMO agriculture. Finding enough unsullied feed in America promises to be difficult.
For the nuggets, at least, there won’t be a change in animal husbandry, just the additional layer of verification required for the new label. Applegate’s organic products are already necessarily non-GMO. To be certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, genetically modified feed and ingredients are verboten. The next batch of items to be verified will be its 100 percent grass-fed beef from Uruguay and Australia. Again, by virtue of being all grass-fed, these cows weren’t eating any GMOs anyway.
It's Applegate's bigger line of “natural” products, a label which falls short of the USDA organic seal but complies with the company’s internal standards, that will see the biggest difference. These make up three-quarters of Applegate's business.
A Moveable Feast
Even as food companies liberally toss out the “natural” label at their peril—see the recent lawsuit against Applegate parent Hormel—Applegate actually defines the term. It says its natural products come from animals that are raised without antibiotics or added growth hormones, given 100 percent vegetarian diets, and raised humanely with space to engage in natural behavior.
Nevertheless, these animals still typically eat genetically modified corn and soy. About 90 percent of those crops in the U.S. are grown from genetically modified seeds, making the process of finding non-GMO options in America an enormous challenge. As a result, many companies must import their non-GMO ingredients from abroad. “There are currently about 40 countries worldwide in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America with outright bans on GMOs, making sourcing non-GMO ingredients from outside the U.S. an appealing option,” the Non-GMO Project said.
This is where Applegate stands to make the biggest impact. The company, which projected $340 million in sales last year, says it plans to source the non-GMO feed for its farms domestically. While the new commitment will require changes from only 672 of the company's nearly 2,500 farms, the feed growers, haulers and storage facilities that serve all of Applegate's farms will also need to get tested for cross-contamination as part of the Non-GMO Project verification.
Certified non-GMO crops do sell at higher prices, but stakeholders are reluctant to take the leap because they also require more work and money throughout the supply chain. Partners like feed-mill owners, says Applegate's Lykken, “need the line of sight of a customer” to know it’s the right investment to make, and Applegate is now providing that.
That other food companies might take advantage of its efforts and dip into these newly verified non-GMO suppliers doesn’t worry Lykken, who says it goes hand-in-hand with the company’s mission to “change the meat we eat.”
What Does 'Natural' Really Mean?
No matter how many guarantees one makes that soy- or corn-based vegetarian feed is non-GMO, by some definitions, food produced on an industrial scale can never truly be natural.
“From an evolutionary, before-man perspective, both pigs and chickens are omnivorous,” says Matt Poore, a ruminant nutrition specialist at North Carolina State University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. They are certainly not vegetarians. Chickens love worms and insects, and pigs will eat almost anything. Cattle, meanwhile, are natural foragers, and for most of their lives still are—even industrially produced beef cattle usually only eat grain at the end of their lives.
A truly natural diet would vary widely by species, says Lykken: “That ‘natural’ designation in itself is a powder keg of questions.”
Whether a Non-GMO Project Verified label on a natural or organic product will answer those questions, or exacerbate them, remains to be seen.
Meaningful or Marketing?
A GMO is a genetically modified organism, something seen in America most commonly in farm products such as corn, soy and sugar beets. As corporate agriculture joined with the chemical industry to change the genetic makeup of crops and make them less susceptible to drought or insects, these artificially occurring versions of earth's bounty have made their way, in one form or another, into your soda, snacks and steak. While GMO defenders point to the mountains of science deeming them safe, there is no shortage of warnings out there that what we don't know might harm us, and that consumers are at least entitled to know whether a certain package contains any GMOs.
So, savvy shoppers will ask as they seek to avoid GMOs: If the product is organic, wasn’t it already made without them?
In short, yes. But that's besides the point as far as marketers are concerned. “Non-GMO” is another surefire way to sell premium food products to an increasingly food-conscious public. Retail sales in the U.S. of food and beverages labeled as non-GMO were estimated at $200 billion in 2014 and projected to reach $330 billion by 2019. That represents a 65 percent increase compared with the rest of the food and beverage market’s 13 percent rise, according to a report from Packaged Facts. Sales of non-GMO foods are growing faster than organics in U.S. supermarkets, according to a recent news report.
“The difference here is one more step of endorsement, which includes testing,” Lykken says. “This is just one more piece of consumer confidence that we can offer.” (The USDA also performs periodic testing for organic certification.)
Shoppers will certainly spend more for the confidence that comes with that little non-GMO label. “This really isn’t about science or safety,” Lykken says. “It’s about transparency and responding to the marketplace.”
“It’s about marketing,” says Michael Halen, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence focusing on packaged food. “People want healthier products, whether or not there’s scientific evidence behind the change.”
OSGATA (ORGANIC SEED GROWERS and TRADE ASSOCIATION) DUMPS OTA OVER DARK Act
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.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)