Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2011

ICE CREAM: Keep it GMO Free

No More Genetically Engineered Hormones!


More and more people are finding out that recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) is injected into cows producing some of the dairy foods we feed to our children. This drug harms cows, leads to increased antibiotic resistance in humans and may increase cancer rates. Its use has been banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all 27 nations of the European Union.
Thanks to consumer demand, numerous companies don’t use the hormone, including Starbucks, Chipotle Restaurants, Ben & Jerry’s, Darigold, Tillamook and many more. Last year, Yoplait and Dannon yogurts both went completely rBGH-free in response to consumers’ wishes.
But Breyers and Dreyer’s, the two largest ice cream producers, still allow the use of rBGH.  Breyers’ brands include Good Humor, Klondike Bars and Popsicle. Dreyer’s includes Haagen Dazs, Nestle´ and Edy’s. Breyers and Haagen Dazs labels even say “All Natural!” 
Please help us take the next steps in protecting the health of our families and friends.
http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/alerts/take-back-our-ice-cream.html

John Robbins on ice cream

Thursday, February 24, 2011

GMO Now in the "WILD"


GM plants 'established in the wild'

Canola field

Researchers in the US have found new evidence that genetically modified crop plants can survive and thrive in the wild, possibly for decades.
A University of Arkansas team surveyed countryside in North Dakota for canola. Transgenes were present in 80% of the wild canola plants they found.
They suggest GM traits may help the plants survive weedkillers in the wild.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburgh.

"Over time, the build-up of different types of herbicide resistance in feral canola and closely related weeds could make it more difficult to manage these plants”
Professor Alison Snow Ohio State University

"We just drew 11 lines that crossed the state [of North Dakota] - highways and other roads," related research team leader Cindy Sagers.
"We drove along them, we made 604 stops in a total distance of over 3,000 miles (5,000km). We found canola in 46% of the locations; and 80% of them contained at least one transgene."
In some places, the plants were packed as closely together as they are in farmers' fields.
"We found herbicide resistant canola in roadsides, waste places, ball parks, grocery stores, gas stations and cemeteries," they related in their Ecological Society presentation.
The majority of canola grown in North Dakota has been genetically modified to make it resistant to proprietary herbicides, with Monsanto's RoundUp Ready and Bayer's LibertyLink the favoured varieties. These accounted for most of the plants found in the wild.
Two of the plants analysed contained both transgenes, indicating that they had cross-pollinated.
This is thought to be the first time that communities of GM plants have been identified growing in the wild in the US.
Similar findings have been made in Canada, while in Japan, a study in 2008 found substantial amounts of transgenic rape - a close relative of canola - around port areas where GM varieties had been imported.
State-wide
What surprised the Arkansas team was how ubiquitous the GM varieties were in the wild.
"We found the highest densities of plants near agricultural fields and along major freeways," Professor Sagers told BBC News.
"But we were also finding plants in the middle of nowhere - and there's a lot of nowhere in North Dakota."
Canola seeds The GM seeds seem to be competitive, allowing a plant community to survive
Canola seeds are especially prone to dispersal, through blowing in the wind or through falling from trucks, as the seeds weigh just a few thousandths of a gram.
Professor Alison Snow, an authority on gene flow from Ohio State University who was not involved in the research, said that authorities had anticipated the existence of GM "volunteers" - plants growing in the wild outside fields - but did not consider it a problem.
"Regulatory agencies in the US have acknowledged that volunteer populations of GM, herbicide-resistant canola are expected to occur, as well as populations of inter-specific hybrids," she told BBC News.
"Over time, however, the build-up of different types of herbicide resistance in feral canola and closely related weeds, like field mustard, could make it more difficult to manage these plants using herbicides."
US policy is not to place a GM crop under any special regulatory regime unless there is a demonstrable difference between it and its conventional equivalent. The varieties in use here were deregulated in 1988 and 1989.
This is very different from the regime that has existed for a decade in the European Union.
But the European Commission recently recommended that nations should now be allowed to make their own decisions on whether to allow the crops or not, once they have passed health and environmental impact assessments at EU level.
Authorisations at EU level have been issued for GM potatoes, sugar beet, soya bean, oilseed rape, cotton and maize products.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

More coverage

Friday, December 31, 2010

More GMO Risk to Consumers May Impact EU

UPDATE: EU  
EU officials plan to give the 27 member states the freedom to grow, restrict or ban genetically modified (GM) crops.
The European Commission says different local conditions mean EU countries need more flexibility to decide where, if at all, GM crops are grown.
But the EU will continue to study the health impact of GM crops under its current authorisation system.
GM crop ban may be lifted in EU

Leigh Phillips, guardian.co.uk, 12 July, 2020
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/12/gm-crop-ban-eu-proposal

Oil seed rape is one of the gm crops that may be cultivated if the European commission's proposal is accepted. Photograph: Guardian The European Union will take a huge stride tomorrow towards freeing up the production of GM crops when the European commission proposes allowing national governments to make up their own minds on whether to permit their cultivation.

In a move which aims to resolve a 12-year deadlock that has resulted in a virtual freeze on the approval of GM farming, the commission will propose allowing pro-GM states such as Spain and the Netherlands to increase production, while also allowing others such as Germany and Austria to maintain restrictions.

The rare instance of Brussels handing back power to individual nations will likely present Britain's government with a delicate decision; caught between a robust GM industry lobby and a vocal protest movement.

While making it easier for states to ban GM crops, giving them the option of citing non-scientific grounds such as socio-economic or cultural reasons, Brussels is expecting a quid pro quo from opponents, that they will end what is seen as a strategy of stalling health and environmental approval by the EU.

"While it's up to member states to decide, we expect them to be more flexible from where they are now in terms of authorisation at the EU level," said one commission official.

GM cultivation in Europe has been in limbo since 1998, when a GM corn product developed by US giant Monsanto was approved, because of a deadlock between states that are for and against the biotechnology. The EU proposals are designed to appeal to both camps. On the one hand, they give anti-states broader rights to restrict GM crop cultivation on their own soil, in exchange for them softening their opposition to approval elsewhere. Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, and Luxembourg have banned cultivation; Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Britain are in favour.

"The momentous thing the commission is doing is a very simple addition to the [GM] legislation – one single article," said Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, of EuropaBio, the biotechnology lobbyists, "to allow an opt-out for political reasons".

"We hope this will break the deadlock over GM, but it's missing a defence of fundamental principles [of choice]. In some countries there might be more cultivation, but in many it will mean the end of the right of farmers to grow them at all."

Green groups are also opposed, but because they feel that the change "isn't worth the paper it's written on," according to Mute Schimps of Friends of the Earth Europe.

"It's going in two directions at the same time: ostensibly allowing more banning, but also easier authorisation at the EU level," she said.

"While the commission is seemingly offering countries the right to implement national bans, in reality the proposal does the opposite, opening Europe's fields to GM crops. Governments that try to ban GM crops in their countries will find the bans overturned in court by biotech lawyers due to the weak legal basis of this short-term proposal," she added.

In a mirror image of the pro-GM lobby, the anti-GM lobby says: "All European farmers have the right to be protected from GM contamination, not just some."

The expanded ability to ban crops, on the grounds of prevention of contamination, will go into effect immediately from tomorrow, while the long-term overhaul of existing regulations, allowing member states to prohibit cultivation on non-scientific grounds, could take up to two years following the usual legislative process in the European capital.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Newsletter Post Script: Food

If you're a current subscriber to our every-other-month newsletter, herbalYODA Says! you would have received the July issue this morning.  Later today our subscribers will get this update.
Food issues must be on most everyone's agenda of concern as several news items directly related to the most recent issue of hYS arrived this morning.

Just four companies control 84% of the nation's beef and 70% of its pork, one company controls 40% of our milk supply, another holds patents on 80% of our corn, and just five chains sell 50% of the nation's groceries — and this recent report goes on to suggest this concentration is at the root of problems in the rural economy.

Corporate ownership in the natural food market place has grown exponentially over the last decade
http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/corporate-ownership.html

You can read more about 'plant sterol' hype in food and drugs, much from GMO sources
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/please-explain-this-to-cargill.html

And how GMO corn just might alter sea life -

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/corn-and-dead-zones-in-gulf.html

"Another Look at Livestock's Contributions to Global Climate Change

The Organic Center reports on a paper issued by the World Watch Institute (Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens? by Robert Goodland, and Jeff Anhang) that estimates livestock accounts for over 51% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — a share more than four-times larger than the recent, official estimate (11.8%) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Although the report's findings are far outside the current mainstream projections, it's written by two experienced analysts working for the World Bank, and they identify eight key differences they have with the FAO projections.

The most significant, which accounts for over one-third of the difference, is something they term "overlooked respiration by livestock." Other factors they identify include overlooked land use changes, undercounting animal numbers, and misclassification of certain emission sources.

The report reinforces the growing consensus that much more work is needed to develop accurate estimates of agricultural sources of GHG emissions, a necessary first step in crafting policies to cost-effectively reduce emissions."
(source: Frontier Natural Products)

Important to consider also is the development of a new campaign against GMO food

NON-GMO CAMPAIGN
Coming in October 2010, the first NON-GMO Month
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/non-gmo-campaign.html

In Europe, all products containing more than 0.9% GMO are labeled by the government. In the U.S. and Canada, on the other hand, government has done nothing to inform consumers about which food and products contain GMOs.

It is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 75% of the processed foods in the average grocery store.

Many people are concerned about the potential health risks of products made using the relatively new technology of genetic modification.  The Non-GMO Project respects your right to know what’s in the food you’re eating and the products you’re buying.

Where consumers can learn more http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/

But some good news is that later this summer I'll be able to offer organic Chia seed in bulk for about $18/pound plus shipping in addition to all the other good organic, bulk items offered in our Natural Store.  CHI Members receive a discount on all their orders.

Stay tuned!

Sunday, December 26, 2010

NON-GMO CAMPAIGN

from OCA - 4 Simple Ways to Avoid GMOs
1. Buy organic - organic producers are not allowed to use GMOs
2. Look for "Non-GMO" labels
3. Avoid risky ingredients: corn, soy, vegetable oil (canola, cottonseed, and soybean), sugarbeet sugar
4. Buy products listed in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide

Coming in October 2010, the first NON-GMO Month

In Europe, all products containing more than 0.9% GMO are labeled by the government. In the U.S. and Canada, on the other hand, government has done nothing to inform consumers about which food and products contain GMOs.

It is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 75% of the processed foods in the average grocery store.

Many people are concerned about the potential health risks of products made using the relatively new technology of genetic modification.  The Non-GMO Project respects your right to know what’s in the food you’re eating and the products you’re buying.

Where consumers can learn more

Marketing push targets bioengineered food

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Please explain this to Cargill

While we know this product is highly unlikely to be non-GMO, it's also another example of corporate irresponsibility.

I've posted numerous articles on Natural Health News about the promotion of "plant sterol" products allegedly for heart health.

When doing some digging I found that it is GMO canola and soy oils used to push this agenda, and consumers are mostly unaware.

Flax seeds and flax oil are tremendous health promoting foods, but flax oil is extremely fragile and turns rancid quickly. One has to wonder will Cargill utilize GMO flax seed to make their oil. And what will they use to make it stable for nine months, non-refrigerated?.
What it's got: Flaxseed is a good plant source for a type of omega-3 fatty acid known as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). It also contains soluble fiber and plant estrogens called lignans..
Why it's super: Flaxseed may improve heart health by lowering blood pressure, inflammation, and blood triglyceride levels and helping to prevent clot formation in arteries. Some studies suggest it may also reduce the risk of some cancers.
The major issue beyond GMO and the liver toxicity relationship to canola oil, is the inability for a vast majority of people to convert these oils from ALA to Omega 3.

Additionally, most commercial oils are produced with toxic hexane and toxic benzene.

I guess you'd better learn to read labels, your life may depend on it.
Cargill To Introduce Industry-First Healthy Oil Innovation, Clear Valley® Omega-3 Oil Made From Canola And Flax Seed, At IFT Food Expo
Revolutionary new oil delivers heart health benefits, allows ALA omega-3 label claim in low-fat, shelf-stable products

Minneapolis, MA /PRNewswire/ - Cargill will introduce a revolutionary new canola/flax seed oil blend at the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Food Expo July 18-20 in Chicago. Cargill recently completed a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) self-determination for the ingredient, which will allow food manufacturers to make a "good source of ALA (alpha linolenic acid) omega-3" or "excellent source of ALA omega-3" Nutrient Content Claim(1) on the front of the package. The new oil contains up to 30 percent of ALA omega-3 and provides a minimum of 160 milligrams of ALA in most applications. Clear Valley® Omega-3 Oil, which is patent pending, is now available for product trial testing.

"As heart-health is top of mind for many consumers, Cargill developed Clear Valley®Omega-3 Oil to help manufacturers who want to seamlessly deliver heart-healthy products to this market," said Willie Loh, Ph.D., vice president in Cargill's oils and shortenings business. "This is not a small opportunity for our customers. Seventy-seven percent of consumers have used heart-healthy foods in the past year(2), and 63 percent of consumers are trying to add sources of omega-3 to their diets(3)," said Loh. Loh further discusses the subject of healthy oils innovation on the Cargill Innovation Exchange. Read complete article

Saturday, November 20, 2010

More About GMO in Your Food

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21101.cfm

Which Federal Politicians Oppose GMO Labeling?Monsanto's Minions in Congress 

Monsanto is a major corrupting force in the political arena. Each year Monsanto contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to elected officials, while their powerful allies, Food Inc. and the Farm Bureau, contribute millions more. We characterize these indentured Congress members as "Monsanto's Minions," to call attention to the fact that they would rather deny consumers the right to know whether their foods are genetically engineered or not (90% of their constituents want labels on GMOs), rather than standing up to Monsanto and the other Gene Giants: Syngenta, Dow, BASF, Dupont, and Bayer.

Is your US Representative one of Monsanto's Minions?

Fight Monsanto! Ask Your Representatives to Co-Sponsor Kucinich's Bill to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

On June 21, 2010, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced he would introduce three bills to comprehensively regulate all genetically engineered products, including a bill that would require all foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled.
Most Americans simply do not understand that 80% of non-organic supermarket processed foods (basically every product containing soy, corn, canola, cottonseed oil, sugar beet derivatives or ingredients from animals fed soy or corn) are contaminated with genetically modified organisms. While nearly everyone in North America has eaten genetically modified foods, only 26% believe that they have.
People don't think they're eating genetically modified foods because they have no way of knowing whether they are or not. Genetically modified foods aren't labeled.
If we're going to save this generation from reproductive dysfunction and save our farmland from the ravages of RoundUp, we need to stop Monsanto.
The first step is to protect consumers' right to know whether their food is genetically modified. Please ask your representatives in the US Congress to cosponsor Rep. Kucinich's legislation.

Friday, November 19, 2010

India Says NO to GMO

UPDATE: 2/12/10 Monsanto 'faked' data for approvals claims its ex-chief
UPDATE: 2/10/10
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use:The First Thirteen Years
Compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds.
Monsanto's GMO perversion of food
In the 2010 growing season Monsanto plans to unleash its latest Frankenfood experiment on the American and Canadian public, a new version of genetically mutated corn with eight abnormal gene traits called Genuity SmartStax corn. It is the culmination of an astonishing scandal that has been steadily building over the past decade.
2/9/10 Many people do not like eggplant, however I am not one of them.  I am much more in support of doing away with all GMO crops because of the inherent danger they pose to health.

India has deferred the commercial cultivation of what would have been its first genetically modified (GM) vegetable crop due to safety concerns.  
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said more studies were needed to ensure genetically modified aubergines were safe for consumers and the environment.
The GM vegetable has undergone field trials since 2008 and received approval from government scientists in 2009.
But there has been a heated public row over the cultivation of the GM crop.
The BBC's Geeta Pandey, who was at the news conference in Delhi, says Mr Ramesh's decision has put any cultivation of GM vegetables in India on hold indefinitely.
'Difficult decision'
"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," Mr Ramesh said.
“ The decision is responsible to science and responsive to society ”
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh
He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals".
The minister said "independent scientific studies" were needed to establish "the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment".
Mr Ramesh said it was "a difficult decision to make" since he had to "balance science and society".
"The decision is responsible to science and responsive to society," he said.
India is the largest producer of aubergines in the world and grows more than 4,000 varieties.
Indian seed company Mahyco - partner of US multinational corporation Monsanto - which has developed BT brinjal, says the GM vegetable is more resistant to natural pests.
But anti-GM groups say there are serious health concerns and they allege that consumption of GM crops can even cause cancer.
The government-controlled Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) approved BT brinjal for commercial cultivation in October 2009.
Following an uproar from farmers and anti-GM activists, the environment minister held a series of national consultation meetings across India.
Several of the aubergine-growing Indian states have already said they were opposed to BT brinjal.
India allowed the use of genetically modified seeds for cotton in 2002.


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Know Your GMO

UPDATE, JUNE 21: High Court Delivers Ruling that Leaves Ban on Planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa in Place in First-Ever Case on a Genetically-Engineered Crop
The United States Supreme Court announced its decision today in Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court.  Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts’ rulings, the judgment holds that the ban on planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa still stands until and unless future deregulation by the Agency occurs.  This is a major victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers and Consumers it represents!
In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held: “In sum…the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.” (Opinion at p. 22).
The Court also held that:
  • Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge. 
  • The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.
USDA indicated at the Supreme Court argument that full deregulation is about a year away and that they will not pursue a partial deregulation in the interim.  Any new attempt at deregulation in full or part will still be subject to legal challenge.
Many of you may have read press this morning reporting that the 7-1 decision announced by the Supreme Court today went entirely in Monsanto's favor. Not to our surprise, Monsanto’s PR machine is working hard to overpower the truth in today's decision in the first-ever Supreme Court case on genetically engineered crops (Monsanto Co. v.  Geertson Seed Farms). While the decision is complicated, this Court opinion is in many ways a victory for CFS and a defeat against Monsanto—especially given that it is still illegal to sell or plant GMO alfalfa.
CFS’s Executive Director, Andrew Kimbrell authored an article in today's Huffington Post to help clarify the legal ramifications of the decision. Grist also has a good piece outlining the decision, as does Eco Centric.
Despite what Monsanto is claiming—and what many mainstream media outlets reported earlier this morning—today’s ruling isn’t even close to the victory they were hoping for. Generally speaking, Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to rule on three main issues: (1) to lift the injunction on GMO alfalfa; (2) to allow the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa; (3) to rule that contamination from GMO crops not be considered irreparable harm.
In fact, the court only ruled on the first request which it did affirm by stating that the injunction was overly broad and should be overturned. However, the Court ruled in CFS's favor on the other two issues, which in many ways are more important as the fact remains that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction against planting was simply unnecessary since, under lower courts’ rulings, Roundup Ready Alfalfa became a regulated item and illegal to plant.  In other words, the injunction was “overkill’ because our victory in lower federal court determined that USDA violated the National Environmental Protection Act and other environmental laws when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa.  The court felt that voiding the USDA’s decision to make the crop legally available for sale was enough.
The Center is victorious in this case in several other ways: most importantly, the High Court did not rule on several arguments presented by Monsanto about the application of federal environmental law.  As a result, the Court did not make any ruling that could have been hurtful to National Environmental Policy Act or any other environmental laws.  In addition, the Court opinion supported the Center’s argument that gene flow is a serious environmental and economic threat.  This means that genetic contamination from GMOs can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective, another huge victory for CFS. 
We could not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court without your support—thank you! Your letters, phone calls and donations have been invaluable in the efforts to ban GE alfalfa. We will keep you updated on any Agency attempts to deregulate GE alfalfa and on the ongoing EIS process. In the meantime, if you have not already done so, please take a moment to contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter circulating in the U.S. House and Senate urging USDA to ban GE alfalfa.

Further background information on the history of this case and scientific studies are available at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/. Today’s press release can be found here: http://truefoodnow.org/2010/06/21/supreme-court-ruling-in-monsanto-case-is-victory-for-center-for-food-safety-farmers/#more-1217, and The Supreme Court decision can be viewed here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf 


UPDATE: 28 May - 
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.
Tom Vilsack was well known to be a great Monsanto cheerleader before Obama selected him for AG Secretary -

Now here's another chance to let him and Health Secretary Sebelius know how dangerous GMO's are to health and why labelling MUST be required on food.  


You Do Have the Right to Know

Action Alert – Protect Your Right to Know Which Foods Contain GMOs

Please send this URGENT message to U.S. Government leaders to protect your right to know which foods are made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Click and send an email today to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius). Please try to do this before Wednesday, May 5th, but don’t stop until they come around.

They must stop U.S. negotiators at an international (Codex) conference from May 3-7, from pushing an agenda that could make it difficult for anyone, anywhere in the world to label foods as genetically modified (GM) – or even make non-GMO claims on their product’s label.

The U.S. is taking the ridiculous and unscientific position that GMOs are not different from conventional foods, claiming labels that say GMO or non-GMO are misleading.

If they succeed at the meeting, the U.S. may then file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that implements mandatory labeling of GMOs, or even allows non-GMO claims on packages.

This Is a Grave Threat to the Non-GMO Tipping Point – We Must Push Back Now!

The growing evidence and concern about health dangers of GMOs is making waves. A renowned US Medical organization (American Academy of Environmental Medicine) called on doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. Consumers are seeking non-GMO brands, and the fastest growing claim among store brands in 2009 was “GMO-Free” (Neilson Survey). The trade journal Supermarket News predicts GMO concerns will erupt this year, specifically because consumers are now given choices by the new Non-GMO Shopping Guide website and the Non-GMO Project’s third-party verified standard for making non-GMO claims.

Most Americans (53%) say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. But even 5% would likely be enough to create a tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing all GM ingredients out of our food supply.

We can see the tipping point just over the horizon, but it is now threatened by the US position at Codex.

Tell our government leaders that you will not stand for this outrageous obstruction of our democracy and human rights. Demand that the U.S. support the right for countries everywhere to label GMOs. And remind them that 9 out of 10 Americans want mandatory GMO labeling, and that President Obama actually made a campaign pledge to implement it—which are all waiting for.

Send an email today

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent by The Institute for Responsible Technology, located at PO Box 469 - Fairfield, IA 52556 -

Kagan goes to bat for Monsanto
U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, is the most recent in a long line of pro-biotech Obama appointees.
As Solicitor General, Kagan submitted a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court in favor of Monsanto's appeal in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms.
Monsanto is trying to get the Supreme Court to force genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa onto the market, despite passionate opposition from organic consumers and farmers, and despite the fact the USDA never did a proper Environmental Impact Statement. Geerston Seed Farms made the case that GE alfalfa would permanently contaminate their GE-free alfalfa seed, prompting a California US District Court to effectively ban Monsanto's GE alfalfa.
As Solicitor General, Kagan is supposed to represent the interests of the American people in matters that come before the Supreme Court. Instead, she went to bat for Monsanto Co.

ORIGINAL POST DATE 5/4/10

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

GMO Crops: None too good for health

More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops

Soy, corn, wheat, and any other crop you might want to list - again and again - are showing the long-criticized concerns postulated by scientists who have not been under Monsanto's thumb for the last couple of decades as this expands.
A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what happened.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2009/1221/More-herbicide-use-reported-on-genetically-modified-crops
Learn more here, here, here, and here