5 Things You Need to Know About GMOs

Michele Jacobson, a certified Clinical Nutritionist and the author of Just Because You’re An American Doesn’t Mean You Have To Eat Like One!, recently wrote an article entitled 5 Things You Need to Know About GMOs.  We've talked about this issue a lot because it deserves being talked about, and the second that we lose momentum over this issue is the second the bills currently pending nationally and statewide lose ground.  If you still haven't contacted your legislator in Connecticut, or haven't signed the Federal petition, here are some excerpts from Michele's article that might sway you to do so:

Why You Want To Avoid GMOs
What about the effects of GMOs on us after we’ve eaten them? Human studies are sparse to date, but there is a broad call for more research due to suspicion that foods made from GMO plants are linked to an increase in allergies. Indeed, “soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.”2 Additionally, “scientists recently found GE insecticide in corn showing up in the umbilical cords of pregnant women.”

Where Does The Rest Of The World Stand?
“Unlike most other developed countries – such as 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods. Yet polls have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of Americans, – over 90% in most studies – believe GE foods should be labeled.”
 
Labeling in the EU is mandatory. Even some countries in need of aid have restricted the use of GM food. The United States is the only country in the world that allows the unregulated and unlabeled distribution of genetically modified and genetically engineered foods to be sold.

What CanYou Do?
As it turns out, there is quite a bit you can do on a personal level to make your stance known.
1 - Avoid GM and GE foods to the best of your ability! It’s not so easy, as they have really infiltrated our food system, but by avoiding processed foods and paying attention to labels you can at least stand a chance.
2 - Buy 100% certified organic food. While guaranteeing your safety from genetically modified foods, this also makes a statement to producers that you don’t support GMOs in our food system. It’s simple supply and demand (or, in this case, demand and supply). Although it certainly isn’t the only reason to buy organic foods, it’s a great reason to start.
3 - Many states have bills pending the labeling of GMO products. Or, at JustLabelIt you can sign a petition for the FDA to require that all genetically engineered foods be labeled as such.
4 - Raise awareness! Talk about it to your friends, point out the No GMOs label on packaging, and pass this article along to a friend.

For more GMO information, please visit our website.  We all have a right to know what is in our food!  Please contact your legislator today and let your voice be heard!

Another Reason to Avoid GMOs: Bt Toxin Superpests

This is hardly breaking news, but worth remembering when deciding if you want to eat food processed with Bt corn or soy.  At the end of last year, both Grist and GM Freeze wrote articles about insects developing resistance to genetically modified Bt crops.  The following is an excerpt from GM Freeze:

Corn Rootworm

Scientists have confirmed five incidents of insects evolving resistance to Bt toxins in the field to date: Bt cotton in India (2010) and US (2008), moth pests in maize in Puerto Rico (2007) and South Africa (2007) and a beetle pest in maize in the US (2011).

Reasons for resistance developing are:

• Failure to provide adequate non-GM refuges in GM crops to ensure non-resistant adult insects can survive to breed with resistant ones so that the resistance gene does not become dominant. Refuges are required by US laws that are widely flouted.
• Levels of Bt toxin in the crops too low to deliver lethal doses to pests. Sub-lethal doses mean resistance can develop as pests survive, mate and pass on the resistance gene. If the number of resistant individuals is high they can multiply quite rapidly and become dominant.

This failure of Bt crops goes hand in hand with a separate superweed problem affecting Monsanto's Roundup Ready line of herbicide resistant crops. The moral of this story: genetic tinkering has a host of unintended consequences, some of which you can plan for (as in the case of non-GM refuges, which demonstrates another issue of whether or not companies will comply with knowledge-based regulations) and some of which you can't.  Since the yields of these crops are the same or worse than the organic alternative, why not just skip the GMOs altogether?

If you would like to know what's in your food, join our GMO Activist Project and add your voice to the public outcry to label genetically modified foods.  Check out our GMO resource page and take action at Just Label It.  If you want to learn more about the dangers of GMOs, register for our Winter Conference with keynote Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms.

Have a great rest of your week!
Melissa

One Great Reason to go Organic: GMOs

Right now the only way to know for sure if the food you're eating is GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) free is to buy organic.  Organic produce is prohibited from containing any genetically modified material, and organic livestock may not be given any genetically modified feed.  Maria Rodale, CEO and Chairman of Rodale, Inc., posted an article yesterday on the Huffington Post that describes the dangers of GMOs and the resulting need for product labeling.  Maria sites three studies listed in her article and summarizes them concisely: "One reports that GMOs survive in our bodies -- they aren't killed in the stomach, as some have suggested, but travel to the intestine where they remain active in the body. Another study reports that we are exposed to these GMOs, not only from the GMO foods themselves, but also from eating animals that eat GMO foods. And finally, animal studies reveal that these GMOs may be linked to disease.

So I say, Just Label It!"

The Just Label It campaign calls for mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients. The NOFA Interstate Council, NOFA RI, NOFA-VT, NOFA-NY and CT NOFA have joined the Campaign and are also plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Monsanto to protect organic producers from the ramifications of GMO contamination.  As part of our GMO Activist Program, we are building a list of members interested in anti-GMO activism who can help send letters to the FDA or locally organize to advocate for state labeling regulation in which Rep. Roy and the Ledgelight Health District have led the way. Please e-mail Kristiane if you'd like to be added to the list as we coordinate more GMO activism activities.

Check out our webpage to learn more about what you can do to ensure that you know what's in your food.

Have a great week!
-Melissa

Are you passionate about GMO labeling legislation?

 







A message from Bill Duesing:

Dear Friends,

I hope you are well and enjoying the holidays with family.

You may have heard that Rep. Roy is planning to introduce legislation to require the labeling of foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms in the next session.  He has bipartisan support.

This seems like something that you would be interested in and support. 

CT NOFA is supporting this effort, as is so far, The Ledgelight  Health district and the United Church of Christ. The CT League of Conservation Voters will support it as soon as we have a bill to show them.

Most polls (for over a decade or more) have shown that the vast majority of people in this country also support labeling of foods containing GMOs.

This could be very helpful to the local food movement in Connecticut, since almost all local food (except meat and dairy products) doesn't involve GMOs.  The coming of GMO sweet corn next year opens up a big can of worms.

It might also have a beneficial health outcome since many junk foods contain GMOs, while fruits and vegetables, whole grains and legumes don't.  

If successful this will be another in a long line of Connecticut's significant environmental firsts.  There is an Initiative in California to do this too.

We are having a meeting in Hartford this Friday, at 10 in the LOB.  Bob Burns, who is a leader in this effort, says that Rep. Roy is arranging a room.  Senator Maynard has committed to coming. Tom Reynolds will be there.  Diana Urban supports this and may be there.  Edith Prague is 100% behind this effort but is recovering from surgery.

It would be great if you could be at this meeting. Check with Rep. Roy's office rm.3201for exact location of the meeting.

If you can't attend, let us know if you are interested in supporting, or if you have any questions.

I'll paste the language for the California initiative below, as well as some questions about how it treats GMO feed, although I need to spend some more time with the complicated language there to really understand what it means.

It would be wonderful to work with you on this.  

Best wishes for 2012.

Bill

Here's a link to the California Initiative language. 

Farmer Dan and Maine Food Sovereignty

Food sovereignty has been a steadily growing movement in the state of Maine, with many towns adopting ordinances that legalize small scale food production and sales without the need for costly and time-consuming state and federal permits.  As could be expected, the state is none too happy with these recent developments, and along with the FDA, has spearheaded a recent effort to push back against the rising food sovereignty movement. 

Farmer Dan Brown is a resident of Blue Hill, Maine, who owns a single dairy cow.  Dan uses much of what the cow produces to feed himself and his family, but also has an on-farm farm stand where locals go to buy bottles of the surplus milk.  Dan isn't a food distributor, and the notion of getting permits and facilities to be in line with state law is nonsensical in his case, but the state is cracking down on his operation nonetheless. According to the state and the FDA, his farm is breaking the law by selling supposedly dangerous unpasteurized milk to consumers without getting necessary inspections and permits.  Dan, his family, and his purchasers have never had health problems with his milk, while legalized large-scale factory milk producers have had countless issues over the years with their product, but this irony seems lost on state officials who want to see Dan's farm closed to consumers.  In response to Dan's refusal to shut down his operation, the state of Maine is filing suit against him.  It is up to the community and those of us who care about local small-scale food production to convince the state to drop the lawsuit against Dan Brown and respect the authority of Blue Hill's local food sovereignty laws.

Food Renegade recently wrote up a nicely articulated post on farmer Dan's plight that includes two informative videos on the subject, the more concise of which can be found here.  If you'd like to read the full post, check here.  The post also contains information on how you can do your part to end the lawsuit against Dan Brown and support the hard work of small-scale local farmers.

Hoping your Thanksgiving was a good one,
-Melissa

How to Stop Useless Food Destruction

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a legal institution in place to defend the rights and broaden the freedoms of family farms and protect consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods.  It's a valuable resource for any farmer or organization that deals with small farms and locally produced whole food, and their 24/7 hotline can help out if you are in a legal pinch.  If you are concerned that government regulators may be putting your rights and your food at risk, they are an organization to contact. 

Here's the story of Monte and Laura Bledso, owners of Quail Hollow Farm in Nevada's Moapa Valley.  On Friday, October 21, they began their farm to fork dinner with paying guests and locally produced food and music.  As their guests were arriving, farm tours were wrapping up, and the final dinner preparation was beginning, the Southern Nevada Health District showed up demanding an inspection.  They declared that the food was unfit for not only human consumption at a public event, but also consumption at a private event or even by animals.  Let me make it clear that there was nothing wrong with the food they prepared, with the sanitation of the facility, or with the farm's legal standing.  Laura and Monte had complied with all regulations up until the event, most of the food preparation was done at a certified facility offsite and a certified food trailer had been rented for the onsite preparation, and they had a special use permit from the US Health Department for the event.  Despite all if their efforts, and regardless of the fact that their food was, indeed, entirely safe for consumption, the inspector gave Laura and Monte no choice but to throw their lovingly prepared dinner that guests had paid for in the garbage.  And to add insult to injury, they were not only required to throw all the food away but were also told to pour bleach on it, thus rendering it completely useless, even for composting.  This story speaks to how out of touch with reality our national food priorities are.  Our government is willing and motivated to crack down on the small farmer who's never had an incident of illness from his or her food, but are unable or unwilling to adequately regulate large-scale factory farms that cause thousands of food recalls, illnesses, and deaths.

Fortunately, Laura and Monte's story has a happy ending.  As the inspector was forcing them to bleach and trash their dinner, they thought to call the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, that then let them know about their right to demand a search or arrest warrant from the inspector in order for them to continue operating on their property.  When the inspector was unable to provide such a warrant, the Health District had no legal recourse but to leave the premises.  Laura and Monte were able to salvage their event, and the guests felt a greater sense of bonding and motivation to enact change as a result of the incident. 

You can go to the Fund's website to read more about Laura and Monte's experience, and to get involved yourself. 

Have a great Monday!
-Melissa

Sign the Petition for More Robust Funding for Organic Agriculture

Tractor Protest in Madison, WI

A new article by the Examiner points to a new budget cutting process that may decrease the potential for organic agricultural funding in the next Farm Bill.  The expedited process aims to speed up the Farm Bill writing process, but since this means that many food policy decisions will be made in a short period of time, organic funding may end up getting left behind as a result.  To avoid this, the Organic Coalition is asking for citizens who care about local, sustainable, organic food to sign a petition for more robust funding for organic agriculture.

Contrary to popular belief, the organic farming industry is not only viable in the current economy, but booming.  Here are some statistics that the Examiner points out:

• The US organic sector is $29 billion industry, which is even more than the US signed in new weapons orders in 2010, $21.3 billion, according the Congressional Research Service. Those whirled peas bumper stickers must be working.
• The organic food industry creates jobs as four times the national rate and served by over 14,500 organic family farmers. Forget Wall Street, organic farming is where it’s at. It's an instant stimulus package that tastes good.
• The current demand for organic food and beverages exceeds domestic production. In order to meet this demand by 2015, the will need 42,000 organic farmers.

If you want to ensure continued access to safe, healthy food, while at the same time helping your local economy, add your name to the petition.

Good News for Connecticut Agriculture

The state legislature has passed a number of farm-friendly laws.  New legislation will benefit Connecticut dairy farmers, those who prefer to buy local, agricultural students.  The Connecticut Farm Bureau Association worked with Connecticut legislators to create laws that will maintain or strengthen agriculture’s role in Connecticut’s economy (agriculture contributes $3.5 billion and 20,000 jobs to the state economy) while also preserving open spaces and making local foods more accessible to Connecticut residents.  Dannel Malloy has acknowledged that he sees Connecticut agriculture as an industry which will show significant growth in the future, especially with the number of Connecticut’s “buy local” campaigns.  The Department of Agriculture also continued the Farm Reinvestment Program to support Connecticut agriculture.  Through this program framers can apply for grants to expand production facilities, diversity crops and improvements to equipment or land.  The goal of the grant program is for the investments to benefit tax payers for years to come.  This is an important concept for our state and others to continue to value: investing in local, sustainable farming is the key to food security, nutrition and economic prosperity in our state; we can’t cut that investment in our future out of our budget.  

According to the Connecticut Farmer’s Bureau Association the legislature agreed to a number of positive aspects for CT Ag:

-  The maintenance of vital funding for the state's nineteen regional Agriscience & Technology programs (formally Vo-Ag) which will ensure the education of tomorrow's farmers.

 · The funding of the state's Community Investment Act which helps preserve farmland and secures the permanent funding for Connecticut's dairy farmers that helps them maintain viability in case of low wholesale milk prices.

 · A change in the law to allow food vendors at farmers' markets to use one universal health department license for all towns, instead of requiring individual licenses for individual towns.

This will allow more variety at farmers' markets and give farmers access to additional revenue streams.

 · Creation of an Agricultural Council for the state's Executive Branch, giving Connecticut's Governor a way to receive direct input from those in the agricultural community on how to grow our state's $3.5 billion agricultural sector.

 · The creation of a state-run timber harvesting account that will pay for hiring of additional state foresters to oversee responsible timber harvesting on state forest lands.

 · Permitting almost 14,000 acres of private Connecticut forest land under the 10 mil program to be taxed at the PA 490 rate instead of a substantially higher rate. This change will have a significant positive impact on the protection of forest land.

 · The passage of language that allows state dairy farms to create and fund a Connecticut Milk Promotion Board to educate state residents about the importance of dairy products and their impact on our state's economy.

 · New language that encourages towns to form Agricultural Commissions in order to highlight issues facing local farms and requiring municipalities to consider agriculture when amending their plans of conservation and development

 · The defeat of proposals that would have severely restricted farming near state wetlands and prevented many farmers from having access to adequate supplies of water.

Connecticut's Agricultural Extension Threatened by Budget Cuts

Around the country, agricultural research and support has really suffered as states budgets are being aggressively cut.  Defunding agricultural research extensions and education programs will help balance budgets now, but add to our nation’s growing problem of being unable to produce enough food to feed our population.  The National Institute for Food and Agriculture took a 9% cut this year and a 2012 funding bill that passed House this month cuts $35 million in extension funds from the current level of $294 million (keep in mind that the United State’s defense budget is $700 billion).

Here in Connecticut, Governor Malloy’s budget “Plan B” will completely eliminate the CT Agricultural Experiment Station.   The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) was the first in the nation, founded in 1875.  The research station has been an invaluable resource making scientific advances to improve farming and food safety.  CAES has done research on new fruit and vegetable crops, integrated pest management, plant disease, invasive species, improvement of soil and water quality.  To learn more about CAES here is an explanation of its history and accomplishments: http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/caes_accomplishments_2011.pdf

Plan B was put out by the governor’s office about a month ago as the budget alternative if state employee unions did not agree to pension, and health care concessions.  At that time, the list of layoffs included the complete elimination of CAES, with 100% of the employees laid off.  Although a majority of the state employee union members voted for the concessions, it was not the overwhelming majority required to put the concessions in place. If you would like to speak up in favor of keeping the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in operation, please do so before Thursday.

The Office of the Governor can be reached at (860) 566-4840 or (800) 406-1527.  Send him an e-mail at this link: http://www.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=3998&q=479082

Contact your state senator or legislator or find out who they are at the following state government site: http://www.cga.ct.gov/