US Court of Appeals: States and counties can ban GMO crops despite federal laws

Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
December 12, 2016

The entire organic community of the United States just won a massive victory that many may not yet even realize. Even though the DARK Act was passed by Obama and some Senate goons to prohibit labeling of GMOs nationwide, the US Court of Appeals just passed a law that enables states and counties to completely ban genetically engineered crops from ever being planted in the first place. Think about that for a minute. You see, back in the year 2000, Monsanto undermined all US organic and conventional farming by claiming that manipulating genomic material of plants did not introduce dangerous bacteria or even plant “pests” into the equation, but their noxious “Frankenfoods” prove otherwise. So biotechnology giants figured a way to not have their cancer-causing, Alzheimer’s-causing, pesticide-laden plants classified as a risk to the environment or humans. But now, none of that really matters anymore.

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals and their recent interpretation of the Plant Protection Act, all U.S. states, counties, and local communities can actually ban (or regulate) the planting of any and all commercially-grown genetically engineered crops, no matter what the feds or Monsanto claims about GMO.

Neither the Plant Protection Act nor the DARK Act can stop states and counties from banning the planting of GMO crops

Farmers with seed sanctuaries around the country are celebrating this huge victory because they know exactly what it means. No farmer in America who has any lick of common sense wants genetically engineered seeds that contain pesticides in their genetic makeup. It’s bad enough that 90% of US corn, soy, sugar beets, alfalfa, and canola are GMO, we don’t need biotech corporations controlling all seeds and crops. This new court decision sets a precedent and puts in place a powerful fulcrum for stopping Monsanto and Bayer in their tracks, literally. If they can’t plant and grow their Frankenfoods on our soil, they can’t ruin the surrounding environment that’s full of natural, healthy life either.

The court recognized the potential destruction to the environment and farmers from the widespread planting of Franken-crops citing well-documented concerns, including adverse economic impacts caused by transgenic farming on non-GE crops.

The reduction of biodiversity cited by the US courts as reason to limit GE crop planting

The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals also recognized that “the cultivation of GE crops also may raise environmental concerns, such as harm to beneficial plants and animals caused by the increased use of pesticides sometimes associated with testing and growing GE crops, the proliferation of ‘superweeds’ and other pests resistant to pesticides, and the reduction of biodiversity.”

The court continued to protect organic farming rights for states and local communities throughout the United States, saying: “The regulation of commercialized crops, both of GE and traditional varieties, remains within the authority of state and local governments.”

Though the legislature left “field trials” of GE crops up to the nefarious USDA, as long as local and state authorities stand up for their newly declared rights to ban the planting of GM crops on their land, the organic world and conservation groups in general have won the “war” for clean food. Much like the victory celebrated recently by Sonoma County, California, when voters approved a measure to prohibit GE crops from being planted in their county (The Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Ordinance), local and organic growers and producers nationwide have reason now to celebrate having power and control to protect Mother Nature and human health in general.

Organic farmers and consumers nationwide may have lost the GMO-labeling battle, but we just won the war – the one that bans the planting of Franken-crops! Now, at the local, county and state level, farmers and consumers can support organic crops right down to the roots, and that’s even more important than labels. It’s time to make sure everything you buy is local or labeled “certified organic.” Let’s all work together to put the finishing touches on this clean food movement.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

EcoWatch.com

EcoWatch.com

SillySheeple.com

Election fraud: beware of early network projections next Tuesday

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
November 2, 2016

Bev Harris’ revelations about election fraud are exploding across the Web. At blackboxvoting.org, she has exposed GEMS, a vote-tabulating system used in 25% of the US vote. Intentional back doors are installed in GEMS, allowing manipulation on a massive scale.

But keep in mind that major news networks always make their projections of the winners on election night. This is another vector for gross fraud. The projections are estimates. But once they are announced, the game is over in most cases. In other words, declaring the winner is a media event, owned and operated by the networks. (See also here and here)

How are these projections put together?

Here is a compilation, slightly revised, of the most-read articles I’ve ever written. They were about the California vote on Prop 37, which tried and failed to mandate GMO labeling on food. The articles explain a great deal about early projections:

---

November 8, 2012: “Did Prop 37 Really Lose Or Was It Vote Fraud?”

Hold your horses.

On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the media announcement came: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. Projection: 37 had gone down to defeat.

But is that the whole story? No.

As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.

I tried to find out how many.

It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.

I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.

So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:

* Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.

* Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.

* San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.

* LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.

In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.

The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.

So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37’s defeat.

And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?

So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?

People will respond, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”

Really? Who are those experts?

For big elections, the television networks often rely on a consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37?

NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.

NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.

Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this Election Day. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than Election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting about mail-in ballots on election night?

Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts. Edison/Mitofsky are favorite go-to people at CNN.

So if NEP did the premature Prop 37 projections that handed Prop 37 a resounding loss, there is little reason to accept their word.

We’re faced with a scandal here. An early unwarranted projection against Prop 37 was made, when so many votes were still uncounted.

Those votes are still uncounted.

Why should we believe anything that comes next?

—end article—

Then, a month later, on December 10, 2012, I wrote this:

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Then, suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

The latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud mentions a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…but then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified. I see no clear evidence that the flaws were fixed.

The top-down review mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

—end of December 2012 article—

Finally, late in 2012, I wrote this:

I tracked the early media projection against Prop 37, on election night, to its most probable source, the Associated Press (AP).

AP, the giant wire service, is officially a non-profit owned by 1400 member newspapers, who use its services and also contribute articles. So AP is major media personified. Again, hardly a trusted source.

And as everyone knows, the newspaper business in America is dying. Its bottom line is sitting in a lake of red ink, and the lake is sitting in an ocean of red ink.

That means these newspapers, and the corporations who own them, have been re-financing their very existence with loans, and loans to pay off earlier loans. That means banks.

Now you’re getting into the oligarchy that owns this country, and what that oligarchy wants; what they want to win, and who they want to win…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

If Genetically Modified Foods Are Safe, Why Aren’t They Labeled

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 2, 2016

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
– Thomas Berger

“The greatest gift is not to be afraid to question.”
– Ruby Dee

Imagine yourself being the CEO of a big Biotech Corporation.

Imagine yourself being CEO of the most powerful Biotech Corporation on Earth.

The Board of Directors and yourself are having a meeting, and everyone’s discussing data on how genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every single one of you in this room is in agreement that Genetically Modified Foods, that your company has helped create, is a safe, great product.

Please keep in mind, as CEO, your ultimate job is that of increased profits for the company.  If you don’t perform, no profits are had, and you lose your jobs. 

Now, knowing this, as CEO of the most powerful Biotech corporation on the planet, wouldn’t it behoove you to label your product so people realize what type of product they are getting – that of a ‘safe’ variety?  Wouldn’t you and your company want people to realize which products you helped create as head of this corporation, since, not only they are ‘safe’, but ‘nutritious’?  Wouldn’t you, and your company, and ALL other Big Biotech companies want people to know who’s creating a more superior product as compared with everyone else, so that profits can begin and a pipeline of profits can be streamlined directly into your company?

The profit motive alone would lead one to believe that that if you wish people to use more of your product, as CEO, and if you wish to increase profits, then therefore you would want people to know when they are using to your product so they can stick with it, thus increasing profits year over year.  After all, as CEO, that’s your job.

Furthermore, even if other companies didn’t want to label their products [for whatever reason that would be], wouldn’t you, as CEO, want to distance yourself and your Biotech Company from other companies that will cut into your profits [since no genetically modified food products are labeled], in order to show that not only does your product works, but you are proud of it, and you want people knowing which product you help create so they can further support you and your righteous endeavours?

Ruminate upon that a bit.

_________________________________________________________

Decoupling from the above foray into the realm of imagination, let’s use another analogy.

Imagine yourself a prospective buyer of a new vehicle.  You just got a huge signing bonus to a job, and you have enough money to spend to purchase a brand spanking new $50,000 vehicle.

You and your other half go to the car dealership looking for this new vehicle.

Excitedly, both of you set off into the parking lot and begin browsing vehicles.  But then, you realize something rather odd.  None of the cars have logos on them.  You can’t tell which company made which car.  Well shucks, that would be quite suspect, right?

How could you verify from which company which car came?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the claims of the car’s performance match that of the official company specs?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the car’s safety data matches that of the official tests?  You couldn’t. 

Knowing all this, would you as prospective buyer, purchase a car from – Heaven knows whom? – this dealership?  Or would you go elsewhere where they tell you exactly what you’re getting?

Ruminate on that for a bit.

__________________________________________________________

Both examples are quite salient, because we have products, whose claims are being made are safe and effective, but which have no labels.

Except this has a direct correlation to the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms/Foods.

If you wouldn’t purchase a car if you didn’t know who made it and couldn’t verify its safety et al., why would you purchase foods that have genetically modified organisms from company _______ [we don’t know from which company, they aren’t labeled after all]?

After thinking long and incisively, you probably wouldn’t, would you?

This is one of the greatest issues that we as a society are faced with.

While other countries like Russia and others are banning [not labeling, banning] genetically modified foods/organisms, here in the United States, sell-out politicians and corrupt corporations just finished creating a law that obfuscates the issue even more that’s Orwellianly called Dark Act [who are they keeping in the dark?].

Thankfully, there is a solution at hand.  There are healthier alternatives, and for that please read this.

In our information age, individuals need to be cognizant when they are eating real food and when they are not.  If we don’t, we set ourselves up for failure at the outset and stand to lose greatly.

If we don’t look out for our health and that of our kith and kin, nobody will.

Vote with your dollars.  Make it count.

Support yourself, rather than those to seek to profit from you at your expensive.

If we don’t, humanity’s next chapter will be a Dark Act indeed.

U.S. Consumers Organize Massive Boycott Against Food Companies Refusing To Label GMOs

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
August 4, 2016

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is organizing a nationwide boycott of all the companies that have been fighting against legitimate labeling laws for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and specifically those that favored the recently-passed S.764 legislation, a faux “labeling” scheme backed by Monsanto that further turns the lights out on labeling transparency.

The bill, which many are now referring to as the Monsanto “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act 2.0, was signed into law by Barack Obama on July 29. It nullifies existing state-level labeling laws like those of Vermont that would have mandated printed labels for all food items containing GMOs, and replaces these laws with a nationwide QR barcode system that’s both confusing and discriminatory, not to mention completely ineffective.

Members of the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents some 300 junk food and pesticide companies, helped ensure a victory for S.764, despite tens of thousands of calls and comments of opposition from members of the public. In response, OCA is now calling on all Americans to stand up and say no more, by promising not to buy products from the companies working overtime to keep people in the dark about what they’re eating.

What OCA is asking people to do specifically is to look for the new “Smart Label” QR codes – or what it has dubbed the “Mark of Monsanto” – on food products and, if present, to avoid purchasing those products, as well as any other products sold by that particular brand. Instead, consumers should look for products that bear a Certified Organic and/or Non-GMO Project Verified seal. Of course, the surest way to ensure that your food is truly GMO-free is to grow it yourself.

The only exception to this are healthy and organic “cheater” brands owned by parent companies that have contributed financially or politically to stopping mandatory GMO labeling. The traitor brands that consumers should avoid supporting, followed by their parent company names and financial contributions to fight GMO labeling, include:

• IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappuccino (PepsiCo: $8.8 million)
• Honest Tea, Odwalla, Keurig / Green Mountain Coffee (Coca-Cola: $5.5 million)
• Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf Tea (Nestle: $3 million)
• Boca Burgers, Green and Black’s (Kraft / Mondelez: $3.9 million)
• Annie’s, Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen (General Mills: $3.6 million)
• Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays (ConAgra Foods: $2.6 million)
• Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms (Kellogg’s: $1.9 million)
• R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organics, Smuckers Organics (Smuckers: $1.5 million)
• Dagoba (Hershey’s: $1.6 million)
• Earthgrains bread (Bimbo Bakeries: $1 million)
• Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen (McCormick: $500,000)
• Applegate Farms (Hormel: $500,000)

OCA calls Obama out for betraying Americans by signing S.764 into law

Ronnie Cummins, international director of OCA, has also called Obama out for failing to deliver on his promise on the campaign trail to label GMOs. He wrote in a scathing indictment:

“Despite hundreds of thousands of signatures, phone calls and emails to the White House, President Obama on Friday, July 29, signed into law S.764, a bill that preempts Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The bill allows corporations to hide information about GMOs behind confusing QR electronic barcodes that more than a third of Americans can’t even read because they don’t have smart phones or reliable internet service.”

“It’s incomprehensible that Obama, who on the campaign trail promised to label GMOs, and who issued an executive order directing Congress not to preempt state laws, succumbed to industry pressure to betrayed [sic] the 90 percent of Americans who want GMOs labeled.”

OCA has also released a smartphone app that will help you identify which brands and products to avoid. It’s called “Buycott,” and it’s available both for the Apple iPhone and Google Android platforms.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

CommonDreams.org

Salsa3.SalsaLabs.com

OrganicConsumers.org

Truth-in-labeling Proponents Bombard White House With 250k Petition Signatures Demanding Obama Veto Bill That Strips Away Americans’ Right To Know About Which Foods Are Unnatural & Have Been Genetically Modified

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A.Huff
July 17, 2016

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the final stop for a controversial bill recently passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, that would scrap state laws like those of Vermont that mandate package labeling for foods that contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). And more than 250,000 advocates for truth-in-labeling are now petitioning Barack Obama to veto the legislation immediately, and honor the will of the people rather than corporations in this important matter.

S.764, also known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, is one of the latest efforts by the chemical food industry to keep Americans literally in the dark about what they’re purchasing and feeding to their families every time they go to the grocery store. It was also offered up as a federal solution to the problem of patchwork GMO labeling laws already enacted at the state level, but what it actually threatens to do is un-label GMOs, and make it more difficult for the average consumer to identify them.

On Friday, July 15, at 1 p.m., signatures collected at WhiteHouse.gov, ThePetitionSite.org, MoveOn.org and many other websites were hand-delivered to the White House demanding redress. Helping to spearhead the effort were the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Consumers Union, Cornucopia Institute, Food Babe, Food Democracy Now, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, GMO Free USA, GMO Inside, Label GMOs, March Against Monsanto, Moms Across America, Occupy Monsanto, National Organic Coalition, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and Vermont Right to Know GMOs.

This coalition of 286 advocacy groups wrote a letter to Obama asking him to veto S.764 on the grounds that it won’t advance the cause of GMO labeling. S.764 is also overtly unconstitutional, as it overrides existing state laws that mandate GMO labeling on food packaging. Another major point of contention are the GMO exemptions in S.764, which account for as many as 99 percent of all GMOs currently used in food.

“The FDA argues that the bill may not lead to a single label, because of the inadequate definition adopted by the Senate,” the letter explains. “Even if the rules and regulations can be developed, S. 764 allows companies to conceal genetically engineered ingredient information behind QR Codes, websites or 800 numbers which would require consumers to have internet access and a smartphone to determine what’s in their food. This is confusing and discriminatory.”

Will Obama finally step up to the plate and support Americans’ right to know?

For a president who’s constantly nagging the country over issues of equality, it only seems reasonable that Obama would want to nullify S.764 and urge Congress to come up with a real GMO labeling bill that, I don’t know, involves actually labeling GMOs on food product packaging. S.764 is a Trojan Horse bill devised by the chemical lobby to further conceal GMOs in the American food supply, and it’s particularly offensive to poor people and minorities who lack the technological infrastructure necessary to identify GMOs under the mandates of S.764.

Remember, Obama promised on the campaign trail that his administration would “let folks know if their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they are buying.” All it would take for this to happen is a simple piece of legislation outlining what constitutes a bio-engineered ingredient, and how that ingredient is to be labeled. As is already the case in most other developed countries throughout the world, a simple package label stating “produced with genetic engineering” would suffice.

To learn more about how to grow your own GMO-free food at home, be sure to check out the amazing Vertical Garden Tower.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Totally Hijacked By Big Food: Organic Trading Association Turns Against Genetically Modified Food Labeling

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
July 15, 2016

A number of farmer and consumer advocacy groups are breaking ties with the influential Organic Trade Association (OTA), after it was discovered that the membership-based organization, which represents the entire organic industry in both Canada and the United States, sold out to Big Agribusiness by extending its support to the Stabenow-Roberts Bill, which many are now referring to as the Monsanto “DARK” Act 2.0.

The farmer-owned Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) was one of the first groups to jump ship from OTA, citing the organization’s “duplicity towards organic farmers and consumers,” with its support for legislation that preempts existing state laws like those of Vermont and Connecticut that mandate proper labeling for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). OSGATA is outraged that OTA would betray its members by throwing its support behind efforts to un-label GMOs in order to pander to the likes of Monsanto.

OTA announced on June 27 that, based on the current situation surrounding the GMO labeling saga, it was more important for the trade group to prioritize the reinforcement of standards for organic foods and
the organic label in general, than to try to fight the Stabenow-Roberts Bill, which a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assessment found will end up exempting most or all GMOs from having to be labeled.

According to OTA, this compromise of a bill was inevitable, “with or without us,” and OTA’s primary mission is to protect the integrity of the organic label, not to hash out a labeling standard for GMO food. But groups like OSGATA aren’t convinced, especially since OTA had the option to reject the Stabenow-Roberts Bill, but didn’t.

“It’s important for the world to understand that it was the Organic Trade Association that killed our state GMO labeling laws by backing Monsanto’s Stabenow-Roberts bill,” Maine organic seed farmer and longtime OSGATA president, Jim Gerritsen, said in a statement.

“It’s clear that Organic Trade Association has come under the control of a small group of lobbyists controlled by giant-food corporations that also own organic brands. … The Organic Trade Association can no longer be trusted, and it’s clear that organic farmers can no longer condone this dubious trade association’s troubling behavior.”

OTA’s support for GMO un-labeling highlights rift between ‘organic elite’ and ‘authentic organic’

Part of the problem with the organic industry today is that a lot of major food corporations, many of which peddle conventional foods loaded with unlabeled GMOs, have hopped on the growing organic train in an attempt to court healthy shoppers over to the dark side. Everyone knows that the organic food sector is growing by leaps and bounds year after year, and Big Food can see the writing on the wall: If a food company wants to stay in business, it has to cater to consumers who want clean food free of GMOs and other poisons.

But, as these companies have adopted the organic label and weaseled their way into positions of power at organizations like OTA, organic standards have taken a hit, as have efforts to mandate GMO labeling laws that benefit the People rather than corporations. Carey Gillam, a journalist and research director at the non-profit U.S. Right to Know group, says a rift is growing in which the “organic elite” – Big Food corporations peddling their own organic lines – are now at odds with the smaller “authentic organic” businesses and groups that started the organic food industry in the first place.

A national GMO labeling scheme is what both groups say they want. But, when push comes to shove, the big guys are more interested in passing toothless legislation like the Stabenow-Roberts Bill that won’t do a thing to make true GMO labeling any more of a reality than it currently is, with no labeling laws on the books at all.

The good news is that GMOs aren’t even a concern if you grow your own food at home, and the backyard Vertical Garden Tower helps make that possible.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

99 Percent Of GMOs Could Be EXCLUDED From Labelling Under Newly Proposed Law

Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Benson
July 5, 2016

There’s a new GMO labeling bill moving through Congress that, contrary to what its backers claim it to be, is nothing more than a covert anti-labeling bill that threatens to undo many years’ worth of hard work by true GMO labeling advocates pushing for meaningful reform in this important area of food policy and public health.

Known as the Roberts-Stabenow Bill, S.764 is the outcome of an exhausting negotiation process between Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman; Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.); and a powerful food industry lobby that’s proven it will stop at nothing to keep Americans in the dark about what they’re eating. On its surface, the bill seems to be about developing a comprehensive labeling scheme for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food – but dig a little deeper and it’s something much more sinister.

In an open letter to the two senators, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Food and Water Watch and a consortium of other food safety, farm, environmental and consumer advocacy groups is urging a rejection of S.764, citing the fact that rather than implementing a workable GMO labeling system, the legislation would instead exempt as much as 99 percent of the GMOs currently in use from ever having to be labeled.

The letter also points to failures in the legislation, including its lack of enforceable consequences if food manufacturers fail to comply, as well as its ridiculous proposal to “label” foods with so-called “smart” barcodes that can only be scanned with smartphones – something that as much as 50 percent of rural and low-income Americans don’t even own due to their high cost.

“… we oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill,” the authors of the letter write in their petition.

“It exempts major portions of current and future GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.”

S.764 was crafted in secret without any input from constituents

Another major issue with the Roberts-Stabenow legislation is the fact that it was crafted in secret without any meaningful input from the people who will be affected by it: the constituents. The details of what it would entail were never shared prior to its unveiling; hearings were never held; and testimony either for or against was never given.

“The bill addresses a critical issue for the American public, yet it was neither subject to a single hearing nor any testimony whatsoever,” the letter adds.

“Rather, the bill’s preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and municipalities, is the result of non-transparent ‘bargaining’ between two senators and industry interest groups.”

One of the obvious reasons for this is that meaningful GMO labeling legislation that was already passed by constituents in states like Vermont and Connecticut would be wholly deconstructed under S.764, and replaced with draconian exemptions that favor the food industry rather than the people. S.764 would effectively steamroll both state and municipal sovereignty on the issue of GMO labeling, preempting the will of the people in order to pacify GMO purveyors and producers.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Mystery Food: Sell Out US Senators Fight Vermont GMO Labelling Law That Allows You To Know Which Food Is Real & Which Isn’t

Source: RT America
Anya Parampil
July 1, 2016

Senators from both side of the aisle are trying to defeat Vermont’s new genetically modified organism labeling law, which recently went into effect. RT America’s Anya Parampil reports that large corporations, like Monsanto and Smucker’s, have spent tens of millions of dollars fighting federal and state GMO labeling laws. Then Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, tells RT America’s Manila Chan that over 60 countries already have GMO labeling requirements and the US is very late addressing the issue.

SELL OUT: Whole Foods partners with Monsanto to endorse fake GMO-labeling bill that’s actually an ANTI-labeling bill with zero penalties for non-compliance

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D.Heyes
July 4, 2016

What is it about large corporations and transparency that the two seldom mix? And here’s another question: If you don’t have any morals or a soul, then is there ever a point where you think you’ve gone too far or have actually done something wrong?

These two questions immediately came to my mind when I read Natural News editor Mike Adams’ bombshell expose this week that organic food retailer Whole Foods has aligned itself with GMO-manufacturing giant Monsanto, to endorse what amounts to little more than sham legislation that, to the uninformed observer may appear to call for the labeling of GMO foods, but which really doesn’t. And what’s more, if companies don’t comply with the legislation it won’t matter, because there won’t be any penalties leveled against them anyway.

So, a “labeling” bill that won’t actually require GMO labeling or punish those who ignore it. Truly a piece of legislation made in today’s dysfunctional, ineffectual Washington, where the special interests actually “govern” the country via the puppets posing as lawmakers.

The (non) GMO labeling bill

Whole Foods, of course, has quickly come out to deny this, posting this partial response on the company’s Facebook page :

There is no truth to these claims. We have always advocated for more transparency in the marketplace, because we believe people have a right to know what’s in their food. That’s why we were the first (and are still the only) national grocer to set a deadline for GMO transparency in our U.S. and Canadian stores.

And yet, according to the Center for Food Safety, which monitors food-related legislation and has been advocating for GMO labeling:

As explained in more detail below, we oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. It exempts major portions of current and future GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.

According to Adams, after two years the new bill would “roll out a GMO labeling ‘compromise’ that would allow companies to use QR code (machine language) labeling that isn’t readable by humans.”

But don’t take just our word for it. Politico Pro (article is behind a paywall) reported:

Three leading voices in the so-called “good food” sector today urged support for the Senate’s bipartisan compromise on GMO labeling, a bill that would preempt Vermont’s labeling law and provide options for companies to disclose genetically modified ingredients.

Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, Jeff Dunn, president of Campbell Fresh, and Sam Kass, a former White House adviser who now works with food tech companies, all praised Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow for coming to an agreement on a national solution during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s progress not perfection,” said Dunn, who noted that Campbell’s was the first major food company to voluntarily label its products. “It’s a step in the right direction.”

[Walter] Robb said it was an “incredible thing” that the senators came together and compromised during a dysfunctional time. He said he hopes that lawmakers can soon move on to other things.

We no longer rule ourselves

Furthermore, regular readers of Natural News should ask themselves: was there ever a real GMO labeling law that Monsanto would support? When has there ever been a real GMO labeling bill that Monsanto, king of GMOs, has supported?

Finally, as Adams, the Health Ranger, has pointed out, the legislation would nullify Vermont’s very real GMO labeling law – which is what Monsanto and others have been trying to accomplish since before it passed.

The American people have simply lost control over their government. We are ruled by men and women who show no allegiance to any of us, except at election time. Worse, far too many of us simply roll over and send them back to Washington – where they can continue to abuse us. This (non) GMO labeling legislation is a perfect example.

As for us, we’re all far better off growing our own food anyway.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

9 Financial Risks Of Doing Business With Monsanto

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
June 9, 2016

An agricultural, biotech giant, Monsanto has become ‘more vulnerable than ever,’ largely due to having an unnaturally-intense poor public image. In recent times, the company has seen successive stock drops and weaker sales of its biotech-created corn and the best-selling herbicide, Roundup. The company had to report falling profits again and again, slashing jobs.

One Huffington Post writer says that Monsanto is “notorious for being litigious, secretive and combative with critics who question its products or seemingly unscrupulous practices.” The company has been shown to be a bad investment for those who were counting on huge profits from one of the biggest players in the industry.

Now, without ignoring the fact that Monsanto is one of the biggest companies around, raking in literally billions of dollars from sales every year, I’ve outlined 9 reasons to stay away from Monsanto if you don’t want to ‘lose your shirt.’

1. A Potential Cancer-Connection

The World Health Organization’s cancer research agency has published a full report on glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, and called it “a probable human carcinogen.” Since that announcement in March 2015, several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited the use of glyphosate products. As of October 2015, at least 700 personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma lawsuits were pending against Monsanto. More are publicized every day.

However, it isn’t conclusive even in the scientific community that glyphosate is cancer-causing. In fact, other organizations claim that it is unlikely to cause cancer

A joint committee of experts from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization said:

“In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

The real problem for Monsanto, though, is that their product is still perceived by the public (at the very least) to be toxic and harmful.

2. Liability will be Ongoing…for Decades

Monsanto’s liability for making glyphosate may persist long into the future. The herbicide can be detected for decades in many types of soil, and GMO contamination self-propagates in the gene pool and cannot be fully eradicated. Glyphosate has also been found in human blood, urine, and breast milk.

3. Monsanto Legally Fighting PCB Contamination

Monsanto is not only being sued for glyphosate’s toxicity, but also for the creation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) since 1976. PCB pollution has caused almost every waterway in the US to be compromised, harming marine life and surrounding ecosystems. A rash of lawsuits against Monsanto has arisen and there will likely be more.

Most recently, St. Louis Circuit Court awarded $17.5 million in damages to the three plaintiffs and assessed an additional $29 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer, the St. Louis Dispatch reported.

4. Roundup Sales are Dropping

Reports indicate that sales of Roundup are dropping, and so are sales of Roundup-ready crops. GE corn, soy, and cotton developed by Monsanto to withstand copious spraying of the herbicide constitute 90 percent of their revenue.

As more people catch wind of the scientific evidence proving that these crops have significant health impacts on humans, then Monsanto will likely continue to lose profits. Farmers are also realizing that Monsanto’s promises about these crops may have been empty. They’ve had to deal with super weeds and super bugs like never before.

5. Organic Crops Surpassing GMO Crops

Farmers are seeing evidence of GM crop failure not just by growing the patented seeds, but also in their livestock, that is, according to Non-GMO report. Numerous farmers who switch to non-GMO feed report improved livestock health and increased profits. If these claims are continually validated, Monsanto may lose its largest GMO market and perhaps become liable for cumulative losses from an entire industry.

6. GMOs are Creating Superbugs and Superweeds

Super bugs and super weeds linked to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready and Bt crops are taking over agricultural lands across the world. More than 300 million acres worldwide are suffering from these secondary causes of planting Monsanto’s GM seed. As insects are developing resistance to Roundup, Monsanto and other companies are developing and marketing even more chemicals to people who are growing weary of this agricultural paradigm.

7. People Don’t Want GMOs, or at LEAST Support GMO Labeling

Both European and American food makers are ditching GMOs due to consumer demand. One poll found that 80% of respondents considered non-GM food healthier and would pay more for organic, non-GM food. Sales of non-GM food have already grown to more than $10 billion and are expected to keep climbing. Can Monsanto continue to stay financially viable in a world that doesn’t want their products?

8. Politics will Change. Whistleblowing will Happen.

For example, the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor was a former Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto, and current USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was chair of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Politics change. People tell the truth eventually.

9. Monsanto is Heavily Disliked by the General Public

Monsanto has actually been called one of the ‘most hated companies in the world.’ Millions have marched against them, and many say they have been bullied by them in court. When a company obtains a reputation to falsely influence science, there will be negative presence. Any company with this kind of public reputation will undoubtedly face some hurdles.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “it takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.”

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com