How We've Grown!

By Bill Duesing

I stopped into a nearby chain supermarket on the way home from work the other day to do a little shopping.  Just outside the entrance were piles of two kinds of bagged potting soil, both clearly labeled organic.  One even bore the OMRI seal. (This means that the Organic Materials Review Institute has found that the product is suitable for use on an organic farm according to the Federal Standards for organic agriculture.)

Once inside, I saw a big display of seed packets, proclaiming boldly that the seeds are organic and non GMO.  Many of the store's staff wore tee shirts with messages about organic on them. 

Like most of the chain's locations, this store has a separate organic/natural section as well as organic products mixed in with their conventional counterparts-vegetables and fruits, dried fruits and nuts, dairy products and pasta for example. This trend is common all over the country.  In our travels, it is only in the very rural Midwest and Intermountain west that organic products are rare.

Forty-five years after NOFA started promoting local and organic agriculture, it seems like we've won on the organic issue. Consumers get it, even as industrial agriculture and its suppliers and supporters continue their decades long resistance and/or hostility to organic. I know there is a lot more work to do to convert all of our agriculture and food systems to organic practices, but the rate of growth in sales and consumer interest mean that it is inevitable. 

According to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

America's organic industry is booming, creating important opportunities for farmers and ranchers and adding to the vibrancy of rural America. Under the Obama Administration, we've made transformative investments to help the organic sector thrive by making certification more attainable, providing more support for organic operations, and expanding international markets. As consumer demand continues to grow, USDA is here to support producers and help them access the hunger for American-grown organic products...Organic food is one of the fasting growing segments of American agriculture.

The USDA organic program has certified more than 21,900 organic operations to date — nearly a 300 percent increase since 2002. Worldwide, the USDA organic seal has become a leading global standard, with more than 31,000 certified organic operations in more than 120 countries.

According to a recent report from the Organic Trade Association, total organic food sales in this country rose 10.6 percent in 2015 to $39.6 billion. Since 2007, total organic sales have doubled.

Organic fresh fruit and vegetable sales were $13 billion last year, up ten percent from 2014.  That figure also includes estimates of sales from farmers markets, retail stores, community supported agriculture groups, mail order and online sales, as well as direct sales to consumers and exports.  It does not include the value of vegetables produced organically in the increasing number of home, community and school gardens.

Sales of organic apples have grown (12 to 15 percent a year for four or five years) while sales of conventional apples have fallen (1 to 2 percent each year).Consumers understand the value of purchasing organic food. The food market is shifting toward clean ingredients, including organic ones, in response to consumer pressure.

Another survey found that nearly three quarters of the families in this country make an effort to buy organic and that 85 percent of parents said that buying organic was extremely or very important when purchasing baby foods. And, 84 percent said the same about buying foods for their children.

Even though, according to the USDA, there was a 12 percent increase last year in the total number of certified organic farms and processors/handlers in this country, organic production doesn't keep up with the demand. In 2015, there was a 9 percent increase just in certified organic farms alone.  You can search a list of all 31,000 plus certified operations here.

According to Carl Jorgensen, the director of global consumer strategy of wellness at Daymon Worldwide (a brand-building company), “Organic is mainstream now...At the very least, three-fourths of American consumers are purchasers of organic products. That’s not a niche, that’s mainstream.” He was reacting to PepsiCo's launch of organic Gatorade.

As reported in BeverageDaily, Jorgensen said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Coca-Cola launch its own organic version flagship products in the near future in response to PepsiCo’s announcement. He cited a number of other companies, including Campbell’s and General Mills, that are taking steps to "go organic," remove GMOs* and utilize all-natural ingredients - to bring in profits from the “better-for-you” market.

Another OTA survey looked at household income, poverty rates and growth rates in what it calls "organic hotspots." Those are counties in the United States with a high level of organic agricultural activity that have neighboring counties also with high organic activity.  The Penn State agricultural economist who did the study found that in those organic hotspots median household income is over $2,000 greater and the poverty rate is reduced by more than one percent. Being an organic hotspot reduced poverty more than anti-poverty programs such as SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) and the Women, Infants and Children programs.

The map of organic hotspot counties is not surprising.  They are concentrated in the Northeast, upper Midwest and along the West Coast.  The only hot spot in Connecticut is in southeastern Connecticut, but we are surrounded with hotspot counties on Long Island, in much of Massachusetts and in the Hudson Valley.  The study found that the hot spots are concentrated in states with non-profit organizations that provide both certification and educational programs and services for farmers and those where the state provides certification services.  The NOFA chapters in New York and Vermont provide certification and education as do the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association and the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture. Baystate Organic Certifiers, formed from the NOFA/Mass certification program, provides certification services in Massachusetts and Connecticut.  In Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey, the state provides certification. At the time when certification programs were first established prior to the October 2002 effective date of the National Organic Program, CT NOFA was still an all-volunteer organization without the resources to create a USDA accredited certification program. We encouraged the Connecticut Department of Agriculture to become a certifier, but their application was rejected. That was the time when Governor Rowland was trying to get rid of the Department of Agriculture so there weren't the resources needed to fix the application and reapply.

All this presents us with two questions.

1. With greater consumer enthusiasm and more economic success, why hasn't organic grown even faster?  For an answer, look to the playbook of the tobacco, pesticide, lead and fossil fuel industries or read the new book Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Or read this piece about Agroecology, a traditional and mostly organic agricultural system.  The eminent agroecologist Professor Miguel Altieri put it this way:

The issue seems to be political or ideological rather than evidence or science based. No matter what data is presented, governments and donors influenced by big interests marginalize agroecological approaches focusing on quick-fix, external input intensive 'solutions' and proprietary technologies such as transgenic crops and chemical fertilisers. It is time for the international community to recognize that there is no other more viable path to food production in the twenty-first century than agroecology.

2. And, what about the other issues that have been important for NOFA over the last nearly five decades: local production, food justice and climate change?  We're working on all of those through our beginning farmer programs, our work with the Agricultural Justice Project and the new Carbon Farming Initiative. We probably don't have another 45 years to make great progress on these issues.

Clearly, we've got a lot more growing to do.

*Labeling GMOs is another issue where consumers and, increasingly, consumer products companies are getting it.  This essay by long time organic farmer and NOFA member Elizabeth Henderson is important in this context.

Vermont Food Fight

By Bill Duesing

The month after Vermont governor Peter Shumlin signed into law the country's first genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bill with a firm effective date, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association (SFA), the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) sued in Federal Court to overturn the new law. This law is scheduled to take effect in 2016; there is no trigger clause requiring other states to pass similar legislation before it takes effect.

With foresight, the Vermont legislature established the Vermont Food Fight Fund to help defend the GMO Labeling Law.  A strong defense of Vermont's law should strengthen Connecticut's. You can contribute here. 

Why are these three multibillion dollar lobbying associations, representing the world's largest and most powerful corporations, suing to stop what the citizens want? After all, these citizens are their customers.  

USDA Approves Label for Non-GMO Meat

With all the excitement following the recent passing of the GMO Labeling Bill in Connecticut, environmentalist can once again revel in the recent approval from the USDA for a Non GMO label for meat and liquid egg products.  

Last week, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) approved the label for meat and liquid egg products indicating the absence of GMO entities, the first of its kind. 
The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service “allows companies to demonstrate on their labels that they meet a third-party certifying organization’s standards, provided that the third-party organization and the company can show that the claims are truthful, accurate and not misleading,” Cathy Cochran, a U.S.D.A. spokeswoman, said in a statement to the New York Times. 

Stop the Biotech Rider!

The biotech, or "Monsanto" rider is back!  Originally in legislation last summer, this industry-driven rider would not only allow, but require the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed. This means that biotech companies would be able to temporarily override a federal court ruling, effectively placing them in a position of greater power than the court itself. All they have to do is ask.

If passed, this provision will undermine the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system, and will negatively effect farmers, the environment, and public health across America. The rider will give the biotech industry a way to circumvent federal court orders and serves to give the industry assurances that aren't needed.

Tell your Senators to demand that Appropriations Chairwoman Mikulski pull this dangerous and unconstitutional rider, and support Senator Tester's amendment  (#74), co-sponsored by Senators Boxer (D-CA), Gillibrand (D-NY), and Leahy (D-VT), that would strike the rider from the Continuing Resolution.

We can't allow the biotech industry to subvert our judicial and political system. Thank you for taking time from your busy day to make this important call!

Find your Senator's number here

 

You can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your Senator's Office, or send a letter telling your Senator to support the Tester amendment by filling out the online letter here. Learn more about the biotech rider and the Tester amendment on the Beyond Pesticides website here.

GMOs, Industry Involvement, and Preemption - A Word of Caution

Photo via: planetmattersandmore.com

I read an interesting take on possible federal GMO labeling legislation today that cautioned against a potentially dangerous and irreversible situation known as preemption. This comes after a flurry of other articles like this one came out that discuss the possibility of big food supporting GMO labeling.  It might be hard to believe that conventional food retailers would support a federal labeling initiative, but when you look at it from the perspective of money, ease, and stability, it makes more sense.  After all, it's a lot easier for a multinational corporation like Walmart to have one labeling law to deal with in the United States rather than a host of different state laws, and putting an end to grassroots organizing helps their bottom line, reduces the possibility of PR trouble, and generally creates a more stable situation for their business to operate in.  Big food isn't supporting labeling to protect the consumer, however, and big ag isn't about to let the GMO labeling bill of our dreams get written up. That's where compromise and preemption come into play.  An excerpt from the article I first mentioned reads:

[There is an] ominous potential downside of federal GMO labeling: a sneaky legal concept known as preemption. Most advocates don’t find out about it before it’s too late.

Preemption simply means that a higher law trumps a lower law: so federal trumps state, and state trumps local. But in practice, it’s industry’s way of ensuring uniformity and stopping grassroots efforts. How I do know this? From years of experience of seeing it happen in various public health issues. It’s such a huge problem that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded an entire project called “Preemption and Movement Building in Public Health” to educate advocates about how to handle it.

Here is the pattern: a grassroots effort builds over time to enact local or state laws (such as gun control, indoor-smoking laws, or restricting alcohol sales), and industry fights these efforts for years, until they can no longer win. At that point, industry lobbyists turn around and either get their own weak bill passed, or work with advocates to pass a compromise version. In exchange, this law will preempt or prevent any state or city from passing a different or stronger law. Forever.

So if industry and grassroots efforts come to a compromise sometime in the future and produce a federal GMO labeling bill, preemption could prevent stronger legislation from being passed on the state level.  This effectively transforms the federal initiative from being a foundation for stronger more effective legislation into being a watered down action plan that stifles and oppresses future progressive initiatives.  That's not to say that a federal GMO labeling bill is a bad idea - it's a great idea if accomplished through care and caution.  Let's make sure that when a labeling bill is passed, whether at the state or federal level, it does what we want it to do.

Have a great evening!
-Melissa

More on FDA's Decision on Genetically Engineered Salmon

According to the Center for Food Safety, “The FDA decision ignores calls from more than forty members of the U.S. Congress who have repeatedly urged FDA to conduct more rigorous review of environmental and health safety, and halt any approval process until concerns over risks, transparency and oversight have been fully satisfied.  The public filed nearly 400,000 comments demanding FDA reject this application.  Additionally, more than 300 environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants filed joint statements with FDA opposing approval.”

Photo: AquaBounty

According to Fishermen’s News Online, “Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, said the notion that Frankenfish is safe for the public and the oceans is a joke. “I will fight tooth and nail with my Alaska colleagues to make sure consumers have a clear choice when it comes to wild and sustainable versus lab-grown science projects,” the senator said. “People want to know they are eating natural, healthy, wild salmon,” Begich said. The FDA’s assessment imperils both families and fishermen, he said.”

The FDA has announced the availability for public comment of the Agency’s draft environmental assessment for genetically engineered salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies.  The Agency has a finding of no significant impact.  

While it might seem like the FDA doesn't pay any attention to public opinion, it's important to tell them, with an even louder collective voice, that GE Salmon at best requires much more research before it is approved for human consumption, unregulated production, and to be farmed in delicately balanced water systems.  

To make a public comment, you must go to: www.regulations.gov

In the search field, copy and paste the Docket Number: FDA-2011-N-0899

Three results will come up, comment on the document titled “Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Genetically Engineered Salmon"

You can also mail your comments to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-

305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, 

Rockville, MD 20852

FDA Moves Closer to Approving Genetically Engineered Salmon

The Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety have responded to the news of the FDA releasing an Environmental Assessment on genetically engineered salmon with a "Finding of No significant Impact."  This decision indicates that the Obama Administration will approve the genetically engineered salmon, for production for human consumption.

The Center for Food Safety has set up this online petition opposing the approval of GE Fish.  According to CFS' e-mail alert:

FDA says escape is unlikely and that the fish pose “no impact” to the environment. But each year millions of farmed salmon escape, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. Any approval of GE salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 could lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 fish generations. Wild salmon populations are already on the Endangered Species List; approving these GE salmon will be the final blow to these wild stocks.

The human health impacts of eating GE fish, which would be the first-ever GE food animal, are entirely unknown, but some scientific research raises cause for alarm: for example, some scientists have asserted that foreign growth hormones in transgenic fish may increase production of other compounds such as insulin in the fish. Additionally, FDA has recognized that a transgene cannot be “turned off” once it is inserted in the organism, and will therefore have effects that are uncontrollable.

The Consumers Union raises other concerns including:

• the potential of the fish to cause allergic reactions have not been thoroughly tested
• the FDA's finding of "no significant impact" is based on the assumption that the engineered salmon will have sterile females, but the FDA indicates that 5% of the salmon may be fertile - for instance fish at an egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada would not be sterile
• genetically modified salmon will not be labeled in fish markets, restaurants or supermarkets

Sorry for the bad news right before the holidays, but it's likely that this decision was made at this time of the year with the hopes that the American public is distracted.  But, really - what if your Christmas dinner next year is genetically engineered salmon?  Sign the petition today.

Happy Holidays,
Kristiane

GMO Labeling Movement Pushes On Despite Prop 37 Defeat

Former Fairfax, CA Mayor Frank Eggar campaigning. Photo: S. Bates

Yesterday Californians voted on Proposition 37, a GMO labeling initiative that we've been following for many months now.  Unfortunately, the initiative lost by 6 percentage points, with the no on 37 vote at 53.7% and the yes vote at 46.3% as of early this morning.  This is certainly discouraging news, since labeling only seeks to give consumers the basic right to know what is in their food, and the initiative was favored by a large majority of California voters up until recently.  Agribusiness giants have been able to sway public opinion on GMO labeling by wielding huge sums of money used to advertise the no on 37 campaign.  With such wealthy opposition, the fight to label genetically modified foods in this country might seem like an impossible dream, but in the wake of the Prop 37 defeat, I want to share with you a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle's article written today:

Stacy Melken, a spokeswoman for the Prop, 37 campaign, said supporters believe they will win the labeling debate over the long term. She noted that proponents were outspent by a five to one margin and still managed to capture more than 4.2 million votes.

"We showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop," she said. "We always knew we were the underdogs."

That quote helped to put things in perspective for me, and I don't feel nearly as discouraged now as I did this morning.  The fact that the yes on 37 campaign was outspent five to one and still managed to rally nearly half the California vote is really impressive, and proves that money is powerful, but a strong movement is more powerful.  It often takes time to build a movement, and even more time to push the values of that movement through government, so although feeling discouraged is natural and understandable in the wake of a defeat, the truth is that the loss of Prop 37 is really just one part of a much larger picture.

The GMO labeling movement isn't going away.   The issue of labeling will continue to be brought up in the political sphere, forcing agribusiness to spend its money each time to quell it until finally enough people who won't be swayed by costly marketing exist to pass a labeling law.  Proposition 37 shows us how far we have come as Americans who want the right to know what is in our food.  It shows how resourceful and resilient the movement is, and it shows that we really can pass labeling legislation if we keep working toward it.  In the meantime, know what's in your food by knowing where your food comes from.  Buy whole, local, organic, and in season whenever possible, and get to know farmers near you.  Ask your grocery store to stock more local items, and start a garden in your yard, or in containers if you don't have a yard.  And talk to your friends and family about GMOs and why it's important to label them.  Check out justlabelit.org and sign the federal petition, and if you still feel a bit discouraged, read this article.  Labeling initiatives are currently being brought up in other states and nationally.  Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company, and chairman of the "Just Label It" campaign, puts it very succinctly:

Labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when.

Have a great evening!
-Melissa

Do or Die in California: OCA's Final Plea

A message from the Organic Consumers Association:

The final Pepperdine pre-election poll on the November 6 Proposition 37 California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods came out October 30. After enjoying a 26-point lead for the past six months, our side is now supposedly 10 points behind in the polls. The online poll, which in theory has a margin of error of 3-5%, was conducted before our Yes on Prop 37 TV ads finally began running last weekend. But the results are nonetheless alarming.

We still enjoy a lead among those who don't watch TV, but the opposition's ads have turned huge numbers of California TV-watchers against us.

For a full month Monsanto and their allies have pounded the California airwaves with nearly $50 million in TV and radio ads, spewing lies about how mandatory labeling for genetically engineered food will mean higher costs for consumers, lawsuits clogging the courts, "confusing" labels and poor farmers and grocers facing "nightmares of paperwork." Surveys have shown that once undecided or even opposed voters see our Yes on Prop 37 ads they change their minds, and come back over to our side. But we're running out of time - and money - to reach those voters. Meanwhile, money continues to pour into the opposition's campaign. Monsanto just upped its contribution this week from $7.1 million to more than $8 million.

We can still win on Nov. 6, by exposing millions of confused or undecided California voters to our TV ads. But we need to raise money, and we need to raise it today. Please click here to make a donation today.

In addition to running more ads, we need to step up our ground strategy in these last few days. Our 10,000+ volunteers for Yes on 37 are fighting back on the ground by talking to voters in front of supermarkets, sharing information with their friends by email and on Facebook, and by talking to prospective voters on the phone. These grassroots efforts will culminate in a major Get-Out-the-Vote campaign on November 6.

If you live in California, we desperately need you to hand out leaflets at grocery stores between now and Nov.6. If you can spare a few hours, please sign up here for instructions on where to get leaflets and where we need help.

If you live outside California, please volunteer for our national phone bank to help us call millions of California voters. It's easy. You can get quick, easy online training and sign up for one or more shifts here - and it won't cost you a dime in phone charges.

The "Do or Die" moment of truth has arrived in this David versus Goliath battle. The whole world is watching. We desperately need your emergency last-minute donations and your volunteer energy. Please support us in these last five days of this historic campaign!

Have a great weekend!
Kristiane

The Prop 37 Debate

The arguments against GMO labeling, up for a vote in the California's Proposition 37 will come up again and again as GMO labeling is proposed in different states.  So take a look at the debunking of the Proposition 37 myths, written by Katherine Paul published on the Organic Consumers Association website. To read all of the myths' debunking, please visit the original article. Some of these arguments already came up in the Connecticut GMO-Labeling campaign!

BUNK: Prop 37 is full of "arbitrary" exemptions that don't make sense.
Here's what doesn't make sense. Trotting out the likes of Henry Miller - a guy who still thinks DDT is a good idea - to convince voters that GMO labeling is a bad idea. Miller does a masterful job of twisting the truth and confusing voters about why, under Prop 37, some products will require labels and others won't. But if you take away the smoke and mirrors and look at the facts - as carefully explained by the YES on 37 campaign - every single exemption in Prop 37 is guided by common sense. 
For example: 
-- Meat, cheese, milk and eggs from animals. If an animal is genetically engineered, the meat from that animal would be labeled under Prop 37. (So far, genetically engineered salmon is the only imminent possibility here). But meat, cheese, dairy, and eggs from animals that have been fed genetically engineered food? No labels. After all, a steak from a cow that ate GE corn is no more a genetically engineered cow, than you're a genetically engineered human because you ate an ear of GE corn. Soy milk labeled? Yes, if it contains GE soy. Milk from a cow? No GE ingredients, no label. This exemption is common all around the world. Would the NO on 37 campaign have preferred a stricter law in California than the international standard for GMO labeling? 

-- Food from restaurants and bake sales. When's the last time you saw a label listing the ingredients in the seafood pasta you ate at a restaurant or the pizza you took out from the local pizza joint? Never. Because while we have strict labeling laws for food purchased at grocery stores, we don't have similar laws for foods we order in restaurants. Why would GMO labeling laws be any different? 

-- Alcohol. Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law in California that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, Prop 37 doesn't include alcohol. (This is also true for medical food, which is exempted from Prop 37.) 

Check out the YES on 37 website for more on Prop 37 exemptions and why they make perfect sense. 

BUNK: Prop 37 means higher prices at the checkout counter
What better way to scare consumers than to threaten higher prices at the checkout? Legitimate studies - and more compellingly, evidence from countries that have already passed GMO laws - are clear: Requiring GMO foods to be labeled doesn't mean you'll pay more for your food. 

In 1997, opponents of GMO labeling laws in Europe used the same scare tactics, threatening double-digit increases in food prices if government required mandatory labeling. But food prices didn't go up, according to David Byrne, then-European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament. 

And they won't go up in California either, says an independent economic assessment of Prop 37, conducted by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a professor at Emory University School of Law.  Among Bailey's findings - backed by empirical literature and historical precedents - is that companies would rather absorb the "trivial" costs associated with labeling, than risk passing them on to consumers. 

What's the basis for the NO campaign's fear mongering? Their own bought-and-paid-for, flawed and highly biased economic analysis of Prop37. It was conducted by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, a consulting firm with no economic expertise and best known for opposing recycling laws for the soda pop industry.

For more on GMO labeling and food costs, read this statement by the Yes on 37 campaign. 

BUNK: Prop 37 will provoke an avalanche of lawsuits.
Not true. And beyond ironic, coming from a campaign whose largest donor ($7.2 million) has a long history of ruthlesslysuing farmers for growing their own seeds. 

The NO on 37 campaign depicts Prop 37 as a "measure for trial lawyers written by trial lawyers." But in fact, the initiative was written by a group of food industry, farm, science, consumer protection, and public health groups. The original instigator of California's historic GMO labeling law? Pamm Larry, a mom and grandmother, and former midwife and farmer. In 2011, Pamm started organizing mothers and volunteers across the state toward a 2012 ballot drive with only one goal in mind - to let California consumers know if the food they are eating is genetically engineered. Lawyers and lawsuits couldn't have been further from her mind. 

Prop 37 was intentionally written to provide no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. So who's most likely to sue? Consumers. But consumers can't file a class action suit without first giving notice. Once notified, all the defendant has to do is fix the label to avoid the class action suit. Any penalties resulting from labeling violations will go to the state - none to plaintiffs (consumers) or lawyers. 

The argument that retailers and farmers will be subject to lawsuits? More bunk. Under Prop 37,  legal liability for labeling processed foods  lies with the person responsible for putting the label on the product. That's the manufacturer. Not the farmer, not the retailer. 

And just to make certain retailers aren't targeted by lawyers or consumers, prop 37 goes even further by shielding them from lawsuits or penalties in the event they unintentionally, or accidentally, violate the law. Since retailers have no reason to know what's inside the packages of food on their shelves, they aren't liable. Period. 
Read this YES campaign article for more on Prop 37 and false claims about lawsuits. 

BUNK: Prop 37 favors special interest groups over consumers
This one takes the GMO-free cake. Who is better served by being able to put genetically modified ingredients in 80% - 85% of all processed foods - without your knowledge - than companies like Monsanto and PepsiCo?

 Let's not forget who started the campaign in California to label GMO foods: Pamm Larry, Mom and Grandma. What did she - what do any of us - have to gain other than the right to know what's in our food - and the ability to avoid gene-altered ingredients that haven't been tested, and may be harmful to our health? 

According to recent national polls, more than 90% of consumers want GMOs labeled. Who doesn't want them labeled? A host of "special interests" who have been manipulating the government, consumers, and our food - and denying us the right to know - for the past 20 years. Now is the time to stop them. Passing Prop 37, California's historic citizens GMO labeling ballot initiative, is our best hope. 

Have a Great Weekend!
Kristiane

Roundup's Toxicity Goes Beyond Glyphosate

If you've been to this blog before, you've probably heard of Roundup - Monsanto's herbicide widely used to spray lawns, yards, and crops, especially those crops that have been genetically modified to resist Roundup's active ingredient, Glyphosate.  You've probably also heard of the health dangers of Glyphosate as shown in numerous laboratory tests.  What you may not know, however, is that one of the supposedly inert ingredients in Roundup, called polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, has been shown to not only be more dangerous on its own than Glyphosate, but also increase the damage Glyphosate can do to cells on its own by combining with it to more effectively penetrate clothing, safety equipment, and cell walls in the body.  

This article in Scientific American describes how a French team of scientists came to this conclusion after testing POEA and Roundup on human cells.  An excerpt reads:

POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.” 

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens. 

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

The article then goes on to explain why an ingredient that causes more harm than the active ingredient can be  labeled as inert:

The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.

If you want to avoid POEA and Glyphosate, buying more organic food, and more generally, avoiding Genetically Modified Organisms - a primary use of Roundup -  are great options.  Support mandatory labeling for GE foods, and add your voice to those advocating for the passage of Prop 37 in California.  Here in Connecticut, purchase groceries from a farmers market and get to know the farmer you're buying from.  If you know the farmers who grow your food, and ask them questions, you will know your food as well.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

Oppositiion to California's GMO Labeling Initiative

Yesterday's blog post about the California GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative showcases a very important potential step toward eventual GMO labeling across the country.  California has the highest GDP of any state in the nation, a GDP higher than many countries, so passing a labeling initiative there is likely to cause a domino effect culminating in mandatory labeling across the US.  Because of this, one of the nation's largest food lobbies, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, has made defeating the initiative - called Prop 37 - their "single-highest priority".

According to an editorial on Food Safety News,

In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified), Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pamela Bailey said that defeating the initiative "is the single-highest priority for GMA this year."

You may not know the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but its members represent the nation's largest food makers -- those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling; for example, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto.

According to state filing reports, so far GMA has spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Since Prop 37 poses a significant threat to many of the nation's largest food makers, corporations that make a lot of money from the production and sale of Genetically Modified foods, it makes sense that the lobbying group that represents those interests would be fiercely fighting back.  This backlash, however, is promising because it shows just how powerful Prop 37 really is. Lobbying groups might have a lot of money on their side, but no amount of money can compete with a large group of voices speaking out in unison.

Here in Connecticut we might not be able to vote on Prop 37, but that doesn't mean that we can't speak out in support of it.  The more people nationwide who show their support of mandatory GMO labeling, both publicly and to their friends and neighbors, the more likely those in California who can vote on it are to hear us.  After all, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association is a giant national lobbying firm that is currently influencing the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether or not it's employees can actually vote on the ballot itself.  So talk to those around you and be outspoken, because your voice makes a difference.  Let's show California that we support their right to know what's in their food!

Have an outspoken day!
-Melissa

California is continuing to demand its Right to Know.

The Right to Know is building momentum in California leading up to the November ballot on the issue.  Known as the "Yes on 37" campaign and the "Right to Know Campaign", the movement has received endorsement from the California Labor Legislation and Senator Barbara Boxer and State Senator Mark Leno.  

According to the Digital Journal article 'Yes on 37' Right to Know - organizing one million more voters, Senator Boxer said yesterday, “California consumers have the right to know if their food has been genetically engineered. This basic information should be available for consumers on the label the way it is in nearly 50 other countries around the world.”

The bill has also been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, the United Farm Workers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Public Citizen, Organic Consumers Association, the California League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, and the Sierra Club.  This coalition of farmers, agricultural non-profits, consumer advocacy groups and environmental groups demonstrates the broad spectrum of interests in GMO-labeling.  The only opponents seem to be food companies that use GMOs and the corporations that develop genetically modified crops, seeds and foods.  GMO-labeling is also supported by about 90% of California's voters based on voter polls. 

The California ballot initiative might lead the way for GMO-labeling in the rest of the country! We are so excited for this progress, you can learn more about the California Right to Know Campaign at their website, and cheer them on while we keep generating support for the Right to Know here in Connecticut.  

Happy August!
Kristiane

Upcoming GMO Activism Events

Jeffrey Smith and Tara Cook-Littman from Right to Know CT

On August 8, 2012 save the date for a day packed with GMO activism and some of the most renowned people in the non-GMO movement!

 

The day starts out with a Legislative Meeting in Hartford where Jeffrey Smith will be speaking, and continues with a Right to Know Coalition meeting:
GMO Public Meeting
August 8, 2012
10am: public meeting at the Capitol with Jeffrey Smith
12pm: Right to Know Coalition meeting
Hartford, CT

Later on, the Institute for Responsible Technology will be holding a benefit celebrating non-GMO food from around Connecticut:
an Evening Benefiting The Institute for Responsible Technology
Wednesday August 8, 2012
7:30PM
Greenwich Audubon
613 Riversville Road
Greenwich, CT
Celebrate the Non-GMO food offerings available in CT from organic chefs and restaurants from around the state such as Catch A Healthy Habit, Health in A Hurry, Bakery on Main, Du Soleil, Just Food, Green & Tonic, Double L Market, and Natures Temptations!

Still can't get enough Jeffrey Smith?  You're in luck!  He is also one of the keynote speakers at the NOFA Summer Conference on August 10-12.  Jeffrey will also be holding a pre-conference training on fighing GMOs on Thursday, August 9, 1pm-5pm and Friday 8am-12 noon. You can learn more about the fantastic speakers and workshops at the Summer Conference and register for the event here.

Have a great Wednesday!
-Melissa