Archive for the ‘News’ Category

We belong to a CSA and get a wonderful box of fruit and vegetables from a local farm all year long, so I haven’t been to our local farmers market in a while.

We decided to go a few weeks ago to pick up some summer fruit and see what else was around and when we got there I was astounded; it was easily double the size of last summer.  There were a lot more booths including one selling grass fed meat, it was wonderful.

One of the long time sellers at the market, Eva, has always had the most wonderful fruit and vegetables.  She and her husband sell everything from peaches and plums to apple and persimmons and they are always wonderful, as well as organic.  This time when we went to Eva’s booth she had ‘Non-GMO’ added to every one of her signs, and was telling all her customers that her produce was Non-GMO.  I was so happy to see that she was making so many people aware of what GMO’s are, to me that’s been a big part of the battle, that so many people don’t even know what GMO’s are.

This past weekend we went back and I gave Eva 50 flyers I had from the Institute of Responsible Technology on GMO health risks. You can get a free copy and you can print and distribute them for free at: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,5176

Or:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/documentFiles/140.pdf?

If the download links don’t work, find it here:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/SpreadtheWord/HealthRisksBrochure/index.cfm

So this weeks post is about how powerful it is to educate people about GMO’s. It’s time to let everyone know and get them out of our food supply. We did it with rbGH in milk, we can do it with GMO’s in our seeds and food.

And don’t forget to visit your local farmers market. 🙂

Here’s a great video by Jeffrey Smith about the tipping point and how we can see an end to GMO’s in our food supply.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-august-27th/

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:  http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2010/08/pennywise-platter-826.html

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday post here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/08/real-food-wednesday-82510.html

Today we have a wonderful guest post by Edwin Shank – Mom

Hello Friends,

Okay, so last week’s Fresh Thoughts on Fresh Food stirred your thinking a little.  Many of you liked it and passed it on to friends, but some of you had further questions… questions particularly about the ‘building of immunity’ approach to health instead of ‘kill all bacteria’ approach to health. Permit me to explain a little further.

As I stated last week, these are my answers, not necessarily the answer or your answers.

Let’s start with an analogy. According to the CDC, there are nearly 3800 drowning deaths per year in USA. That works out to a little more than 10 deaths by drowning per day. For every death caused by drowning there are another 4 near-drownings involving hospitalization, and many times permanent brain damage.

These are sobering facts. This is reality for some families somewhere in America every day. It is only normal for parents and others who care for the health and well being of our communities to ask the obvious question. What can we do to protect ourselves and our loved ones from a similar tragedy?

Since all drowning occurs in water, we might quite logically conclude that water is the enemy and that the best preventive would be to prohibit people from getting into water. Make laws. Pass regulations. Establish a Federal Drowning Prevention agency to enforce the laws. The FDP would arrest anyone who dared to violate the law which obviously was established for public welfare.

You see where I’m going with this. The alternative drowning prevention is to learn to swim and to teach your children to swim. The ability to swim makes you and your loved ones practically immune to drowning while avoiding water like the plague only leaves your family more vulnerable. More vulnerable since you can be sure that sometime in your life, in spite of your best attempts, and those of the FDP, you or your children will find yourselves unexpectedly in water without the least idea how to save yourselves.

Swimming does not make one 100% immune to drowning of course, so the FDP will always publicize a few highly emotional stories per year (complete with videos) in which those who were experienced swimmers still drowned. Parents who dared to risk their children’s lives by attempting to teach them to swim could be prosecuted for willful endangerment and their children taken from them. After all, they were willfully, carelessly, callously ignoring data from the CDC which irrefutably documents thousands of deaths per year caused by water.

I know this analogy is not perfect, so don’t drag me through the coals to tell me so, but there are many parallels.

About 5000 people die per year in America of food borne illness. These also are sobering facts.  And it is only normal for parents and others to ask the obvious question. What can we do to protect ourselves?

Many well-meaning people have concluded that bacteria are the enemy and so have set out to kill… set out to sterilize themselves and their environment. Kill all the bacteria! Fight BAC!  Buy Purell… put a dispenser in every room. Get antibacterial soap. Anti-biotics for every sniffle. Outlaw unpasteurized cider. Pasteurize nuts and almonds too. Outlaw raw milk and raw milk cheeses. These foods may contain pathogens!

There is only one problem with these bacteriaphobic actions and reactions. In spite of our best attempts, in spite of living in constant fear of the microbe and in spite of government efforts to pass food safety regulation… If we chose to live this way, we and our children will someday find that a stray bacterium has penetrated into our sterile bubble… and our artificially protected, flabby immune systems will have no defense against it.

The alternative defense against foodborne illness is to embrace bacteria as a part of a larger eco-system within which we humans try to integrate ourselves.  We focus on life instead of killing. Pro-biotic instead of Anti-biotic. This is what raw milk, raw kefir and raw cheese and raw kombucha tea are all about… building immunity and health!  We learn to swim and teach our children to swim.  Instead of fearing the water we relax and enjoy life as God created it!  We embrace living whole foods. Whole foods full of immunity building probiotic bacteria, living foods full of nutrient absorbing living enzymes. Whole living foods full of unadulterated, unprocessed, unmessed-with, cell-nourishing, cell-repairing raw fats and protein.

Only living foods give life. Only living foods full of a diversity of natural microflora from our local, natural environment can provide the education and information that our immune systems desperately need to actually protect us as God designed it.

God has designed the entire eco-system to live in harmony with bacteria. The sooner we drop our hubris and accept this humbling fact the wiser we will be.

God bless you all,

Edwin Shank

FDA Disclosure Statements

•Edwin Shank is an organic dairy and chicken farmer, not a health professional.

•If it is a medical opinion you seek, by all means, call a doctor (maybe two or three!)

•This information is intended to challenge, or even provoke you to explore beyond the conventional food and health system.

•Please Note: Any statements or claims about the possible health benefits conferred by any foods or supplements have not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

You can find Edwin’s website here:  http://www.yourfamilycow.com/  – new website will be up shortly!

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-july-16th/

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here: http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2010/07/pennywise-platter-thursday-715.html

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/07/real-food-wednesday-71410.html

GMO’s in the news

I’ll be happy when the only articles about GMO’s are about how we USED to grow them, and they’ve been outlawed for safety concerns. Mom

UK: Food Standards Agency on Hot Seat over GMOs

by Suzanne Schreck | Jun 08, 2010

Two members of the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency steering group on genetically modified foods (GM foods, or GMOs) recently resigned from the group in protest over language inserted into a report from the agency strengthening the case for the growth of GMO crops and sales of GMOs in the UK. 

According to The Observer, emails between members of the Food Standards Agency group and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which represents such businesses as Bayer and Monsanto, show the council inserted key sentences strengthening the case for GMOs that ended up in the final report, “Food Standards Agency work on changes in the market and the GM regulatory system.”

Dr. Helen Wallace, director of Genewatch UK, a scientific pressure group opposed to GMOs, left the steering group last month.  She told The Observer the emails, “expose how the Food Standards Agency is acting as a puppet of the GM industry by colluding with foreign GM companies to undermine people’s access to GM-free food supplies in Britain.” 

Professor Brian Wynne, an expert on public engagement with science and the group’s vice-chairman, resigned from the steering group last week.  He expressed concerns that the Food Standards Agency had adopted a pro-GMO attitude. 

UK Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has recently come under fire and is being called on to abandon a planned public consultation exercise on GMOs.  She formerly was a director at a food and biotechnology lobbying company, Spelman, Cormack and Associates, with her husband, Mark Spelman, and has been quoted saying she is in favor of GMOs “in the right circumstances.”

“The consultation-exercise has lost all credibility,” said Pete Riley, of pressure group GM Freeze.  “And it is clear that the Food Standards Agency should not be allowed anywhere near it–they clearly have a pro-GM agenda.

Read the rest here:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/uk-food-standards-agency-on-hot-seat-over-gmos/

GMO Crop Takes Over Thousands of Acres in Germany

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 06. 7.10

Food & Health

“The Biggest GM Crop Scandal in Germany to Date”

A genetically modified strain of maize classified as NK603 — one that is explicitly banned in the European Union — has been unleashed in Germany. The crop has been unwittingly planted on nearly 7,500 acres so far, and is continuing to spread. The source of the contamination has not yet been determined, but it is believed that it could cost farmers millions of euros to eradicate the tenacious GMO crop.

The contamination has spread across 7 different states in Germany, contaminating fields unbeknown to the farmers tilling the land. Such affected farmers will have no choice but to plow their fields prematurely. Greenpeace operations in Europe helped uncover the GMO’s spread.

Read more here:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/out-control-gmo-crop-spreads-across-thousands-acres-germany.php

And I hope it’s not this organized, but there’s some very interesting info in this one …

Food and Depopulation: Rockefeller Family

Cassandra Anderson

Infowars.com

June 8, 2010

Part 1 of 4.

The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.

Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms).  The intention is to rob us blind and kill us.  It’s time to wake up.

The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world.  There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans.(1)  Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety.(2)  Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails.(3)  This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about.  The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.

Read the rest here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/food-and-depopulation-rockefeller-family.html

Good for them!

Haitian Farmers Reject Monsanto Donation

by Michelle Greenhalgh | Jun 07, 2010

The Peasant Movement of Papay, a group of Haitian farmers, has committed to burning 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds donated by Monsanto in the wake of the devastating earthquake earlier this year.

Peasant Movement of Papay leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste called Monsanto’s donation “a new earthquake” and called for a march to protest the corporation’s presence in Haiti for World Environment Day.

The National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay sent an open letter on May 14 signed by Jean-Baptiste.  The letter called Monsanto’s presence in Haiti, “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds…, and on what is left of our environment in Haiti.” 

In addition to MPNKP and MPP, other Haitian social movements have advocated in opposition to agribusiness imports of seeds and food.  The groups have expressed strong concern regarding the importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they undermine local production of local seed stocks.

Haitian law does not prohibit the use of GMOs within the country, but the Ministry of Agriculture rejected Monsanto’s offer to donate Roundup Ready seeds.  As a result of these actions, a representative from Monsanto responded to the Ministry of Agriculture via email to assure that donated seeds would not be GMO.

Monsanto is internationally known for aggressively pushing its seed products, specifically GMO seeds.  The use of seeds also usually includes highly restrictive technology agreements between the company and farmers, who groups opposed to the use of GMOs claim are not always fully made aware of what they are signing.  GMO-opposed groups claim that by signing these agreements, small farmers are forced to buy Monsanto seeds each year under conditions they often find onerous and at high costs that they cannot afford.

Read the rest here:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/haitian-farmers-burn-monsanto-hybrid-seeds/

Which brings us once again to the fact that we vote with our forks and the best way to stop the GMO food is not to buy it. Buy local and organic whenever possible. 

Locally grown best for eating

By Paul Walton, The Daily News June 8, 2010

Grocery shopping in Nanaimo may have never been this exciting.

With the news that Fairway Market is to move and Thrifty Foods will open a third store at the Brooks Landing location, what could be better?

Not just another grocer relocating in Harewood and building a whole new store, as I understand may happen in the next few years.

How about greater selection of locally produced food?

A trip down the aisles to any of the grocery stores in the city reveals row upon row of — there’s no other word for it — junk.

It’s time that Nanaimo residents started pushing for more locally produced food.

A commentator in the film Food Inc., following scene after scene of depressing visuals and facts about modern food production, makes the point that every time we go into a grocery store we are voting with our wallets as to what type of food we want to be available for us to buy.

Read the rest here:

http://www.canada.com/Locally+grown+best+eating/3126220/story.html

Read more great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-june-11th/

Read more great Real Food Wednesday posts here:  http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/06/real-food-wednesday-6910.html

Nanites in Our Food? Guinea Pigs Again!

By Stanley A. Fishman, Author of Tender Grassfed Meat (Photo credit: *PaysImaginaire*)

Nanites are being added to food, and food packaging. Nanites have even been added to some cooking utensils. There is no labeling requirement. Nanites do not occur in nature. The human body has no experience with nanites, or genetic memory of how to deal with them. At this point, no one knows how nanites will affect human bodies, or the environment. We are guinea pigs once again, without our knowledge or consent.

What Are Nanites?

Nanites are tiny particles of metals or other substances such as silver, iron, nickel, clay, even vitamins, whose tiny size has been created by the manipulation of molecules and atoms. Nanites are very tiny in size. They are much smaller than human cells, being 100 billionth of a meter, or even smaller.

What Is the Purpose of Nanites?

Nanites have many potential uses. Currently, their main use is to kill microorganisms. The FDA has decided to classify silver nanites as a pesticide. Nanites can also be used in agricultural chemicals. Nanites are added to food and food packaging to increase the shelf life of packaged foods, including some beers. The main way they do this is by killing bacteria. Some nanites are used to enhance flavors. Nanites could also be used to modify foods, by means of molecular rather than genetic modification.

Are Nanites Safe to Use in Food?

Nobody really knows. It has not been scientifically proven that nanites are harmful to humans or the environment—but it has not been proven that they will do no harm. Since nanites are designed to kill all microbes, including the beneficial ones, there is concern. In fact, the effect of such nanites could be compared to antibiotics, which are also designed to kill all bacteria, whether harmful or beneficial.

What we do know is that nanites are a product of technology, not nature, and our bodies and the environment have no experience with them and have not evolved to deal with them. Do nanites in food packaging leach into the food? We do not know. Do nanites accumulate in the body and organs? We do not know. Do nanites accumulate in and harm the environment? We do not know.

Which Foods Contain Nanites?

With a few exceptions, the public does not know, and has no way of knowing. The government does not require the labeling of nanites in food or food packaging. With no labeling requirement, it is up to the manufacturer to disclose the presence of nanites in food. To my knowledge, no food has a label that discloses the presence of nanites. The organization Friends of the Earth has published a list of foods that contain nanites, but cautions that the list is incomplete. It is known that the use of nanotechnology in food is believed to substantially increase profits. Even a cursory search of the Internet reveals that there are a number of organizations advocating the use of nanotechnology in all aspects of food production and other manufacturing, holding out the lure of huge profits and benefits. Any packaged, non-organic food could contain nanites, either in the packaging or the food itself, or both. Or it might not. Without a labeling requirement, we just do not know.

How Can I Avoid Eating Nanites?

The same methods used for avoiding GMOs should work for avoiding nanites. Unfortunately, these methods are not 100% effective, but they can really help. I want to avoid nanites, because I do not want myself or my family to be guinea pigs for yet another experiment. I use the following guidelines:

•Avoid processed foods to the extent possible.

•To the extent that processed foods are used, use only organic, preferably packaged in glass, if possible.

•Eat only whole, unmodified foods that are raised without chemicals, organic or the equivalent.

•Eat only grassfed and grass finished meat.

•Eat only pastured dairy, preferably organic or the equivalent.

•Eat only wild fish and seafood.

•Use only traditional cookware, like cast iron, glass, enamel, ceramic, and stainless steel.

•Raise as much of your own food as your circumstances permit. Make your own broth and condiments, again, to the extent it works for you.

•Purchase food from farmers, producers, and companies that are committed to the real food movement, to the extent possible.

•Eat only at restaurants that are committed to avoiding nanites and GMOs in their food.

•If there is a particular food that you want to know about, you can contact the manufacturer and ask if their product contains nanites, either in the product or in the packaging.

We Have a Right to Choose

As human beings, we have a basic right to decide what to put into our bodies. We have a right to decide whether we want to be guinea pigs for nanites, or GMOs, or anything else. The food industry has taken away our freedom of choice by placing unlabeled nanites in our food, and in the food chain. All governments should require that all products that use nanites be clearly labeled, so people can exercise their right to choose. We have a right not to be experimented upon without our informed consent.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-may-21st/

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:  http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2010/05/pennywise-platter-thursday-520.html

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:  http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/05/real-food-wednesday-51910.html

Stanley has a great website:  http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/

You can buy Stan’s wonderful and highly recommended  cookbook here:

GMO’s in the news

Genetically modified food introduces host of dangers

Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.)  bill touting genetically modified (GM)  foods is emblematic of well-meaning leaders who have been duped by the biotech industry about safety – yet again.  The Lugar-Casey Food Security Bill states foreign aid shall be used to conduct research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)  without offering other options. It is time that Congress holds hearings to learn what lobbyist won’t tell them about what’s in their children’s diet.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) cites horrific results of GMO animal feeding studies, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage and gastrointestinal disorders. AAEM called for an immediate moratorium and asks physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients.

How did these high-risk products get in our food? Under the false impression that GMOs would increase U.S. exports, the Bush Administration instructed the FDA to fast-track approvals. The agency dutifully allowed GMOs onto our plates without a single required safety study or label. They justified their position claiming GM foods were not significantly different, but a 1998 lawsuit exposed this ruse. Subpoenaed FDA documents revealed the actual consensus among their scientists was that GMOs could lead to allergies, toxins, diseases and nutritional problems.

It’s time for our leaders, and the public, to know the whole story.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Fairfield, Iowa

From: http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/97069-isp-response-strategy-is-key-to-curtailing-illegal-sharing

Experts Debunk Calls to Allow GMOs in Organics

    * By Ken Roseboro, ed.

      The Organic and Non-GMO Report, May 2010

      Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Supporters of biotechnology have proposed integrating genetically modified organisms into organic agriculture. Spearheading this concept are Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California- Davis, and her husband Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer at the UC-Davis’s certified organic farm. The two co-authored a book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, which argues that combining both systems of agriculture-genetic engineering and organic techniques-offers the best solution to feeding the world in a sustainable way.

Tomorrow’s Table has been praised by GM crop supporters such as Bill Gates, and even by Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog.

Working with vs. controlling nature

But several noted experts in organic agriculture dismiss the idea, saying the two approaches are fundamentally at odds. They say that genetically modified foods raise health and environmental concerns, narrow genetic diversity, reduce consumer choice, and don’t offer proven solutions to organic agriculture.

Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature’s Path Foods, calls the proposed marriage of GMOs and organics a “non-starter for a conversation.”

“Organic is always looking to nature for answers; it is a very thought out and studied high-input agricultural system.”

Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota and past chairman of the National Organic Standards Board, says “Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite-an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level-the genetic code.”

Health risks

Most organic experts point to health risks surrounding GM foods as a major reason why GMOs could never be integrated into organic agriculture.

Pamela Ronald has written that “there has not been a single case of illness associated with these (GM) crops.” This claim is often repeated by proponents of biotechnology but the reality is that no one knows if anyone has gotten sick eating GM foods because there is no monitoring to see if illnesses are linked to GM foods. “There is no data from independent, long-term studies on the human health impacts from eating GM crops,” says Tim LaSalle, chief executive officer of the Rodale Institute.

Others agree. “Right now, we clearly don’t know enough about GMOs to integrate them into anything,” says David Vetter, president of Grain Place Foods and organic farmer of 35 years.

“GM crops are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases,” Riddle says.

Environmental impacts

Organic experts see opposite impacts on the environment with the two approaches. “Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems,” Riddle says. “To date, GM has led to an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content.”

“Organic farming is about concerns for environment and stewardship, and I don’t think that GM crops fit in that context of stewardship and concern for the land,” says Maury Johnson, president, Blue River Hybrids, an organic seed company.

While organic farming aims to enhance genetic and biological diversity, GM crops are seen as reducing genetic diversity. “GM crops narrow and restrict our genetic base, which narrows and reduces options for our nutritional needs,” Vetter says.

Ronald and Adamchak point to the success of Bt cotton in reducing pesticide use as an example of how genetic engineering could benefit organic farmers. Kirschenmann says this “single tactic therapeutic intervention” creates unintended consequences. Pests eventually develop resistance as they’ve done to Bt cotton in India or other pests become a problem. The solution, says Kirschenmann, is an approach that encompasses the entire farming system, not just focusing on one pest.

“Pipe dream, not based on reality”

Organic experts say GMOs offer no benefits to organic agriculture. The two main genetically modified traits are a built-in pesticide, Bt, and herbicide tolerance. Dag Falck says neither application could benefit organic agriculture. “There is no GM application we could even remotely imagine being beneficial in organic. It’s a pipe dream and not based on reality.”

“To this point, biotech crops have not produced the yield advantages or biological resilience to multiple stressors. If we’re looking for reliable, multi-benefit, future-oriented farming options in an inputlimited world, biotech is not a player,” LaSalle says.

Eliminate consumer choice

Allowing GMOs into organic foods would also reduce consumer choice. “If genetic engineering became part of organic it would deprive people who want non-GMO foods,” says Margaret Mellon, senior scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists.

Organic consumers have already said they don’t want GMOs. A 1997 draft proposal to allow GMOs in the National Organic Program rules was removed after the US Department of Agriculture received more than 275,000 comments from people outraged by the possibility.

While there is strong consumer demand for organic foods, Riddle points out there is zero demand for GM foods. “Consumers aren’t demanding that foods be genetically engineered.”

“I’d rather rely on mother nature’s wisdom than man’s cleverness.” -Wendell Berry

David Vetter says this quote best captures his response to the idea of allowing GMOs in organics.

Any decision to allow GMOs in organics would not be decided by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Adamchak, Bill Gates, or the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It resides with people in the organic community,” said Mellon, speaking to an audience of organic farmers at the Organic Farming Conference this past February. “It is your question to answer and not anyone else’s.”

Today, the answer remains-as it did in 1997 when 275,000 people told the USDA-a resounding “no.”

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20792.cfm

U.S. attempting global censorship of GMO food labeling

(NaturalNews) I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers are left in the dark about whether their foods and grocery products are genetically modified or not.

Your help is urgently needed to send a message to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius) to urge them to halt the USA’s nefarious attempts to install a global GMO deception.

Take part in this online petition, go here:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/TakeAction/CodexConference/index.cfm

Please understand that the U.S. is attempting to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods, thereby making it illegal for a non-GMO food product to even claim “non-GMO” on the label. If the U.S. succeeds in this global GMO cover-up, the FDA could seize any products in the USA that make “non-GMO” claims. Additionally, the USA could file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that allows non-GMO labeling or claims on its products.

Why is the U.S. pursuing such a devious and sinister course of action? Because, as you well know, virtually the entire federal government caters to the financial interests of powerful corporations — and these include the “Big Ag” giants like Monsanto that want to patent all seeds while destroying the no-GMOs movement. They want to turn non-GMO foods into violations of the law and thereby strip all such products from store shelves.

They want to keep American consumers left in the dark, ignorant of the real dangers posed by GMOs. And of course, they want to dominate the entire U.S. food supply with their toxic GMO crops.

These powerful, dangerous corporations are willing to do anything to achieve their global agenda, including forcing GMO censorship on the entire world.

They might just get away with it, too, unless you join us in speaking up right now to oppose this devious and dangerous action.

Add your voice to the online petition right here:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/TakeAction/CodexConference/index.cfm

Health Ranger interviews Jeffrey Smith

Watch my recent interview with Jeffrey Smith at the Health Freedom Expo in California.

Here, Jeffrey reveals the astounding truth about how dangerous GMOs really are for your health: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBPY6rcgoTs

Check out the Non-GMO shopping guide

The non-profit Center for Food Safety offers a fantastic free Non-GMO Shopping Guide available at http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/SG/Home/index.cfm

Check it out. There, you can learn which products are truly non-GMO, and you can learn how to avoid products that are most likely made with GMOs.

It teaches you to avoid corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed ingredients, among other things. It’s sponsored by some of the most responsible natural products companies in the business: Nutiva, Nature’s Path, Straus, Woodstock Farms and others.

NaturalNews plans to expand its coverage of GMOs in the weeks ahead. Watch for more updates as this saga on GMOs is unveiled.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028716_GMOs_food_labels.html

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:  http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-may-14th/

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/05/real-food-wednesday-51210.html

Some article from the past week. The first one is such a great idea – Mom

Making Family Farms Profitable

In 1959, the U.S. was home to 4.1 million farms. Today, there are just 2.2 million. Some 40% of American farmers are 55 or older, and young people aren’t exactly lining up to replace them. But a new program in North Carolina hopes to make farming a viable career option once again.

Rutherford County, N.C., has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Yet some 6000 families own between 5 and 20 acres of land, and chefs in nearby Charlotte, N.C., are in need of fresh produce for their restaurants. Timothy Will, a retired telecommunications analyst, helped wire the region for broadband Internet access and set up an online ordering system—Farmers Fresh Market—that lets Charlotte chefs place orders directly with Appalachian farmers. Next, he convinced the locals to grow more exotic items like lacinato kale and purple beans. (“They’d never seen beans like that before,” Will laughs. “Here, beans are green.”) Two years later, Farmers Fresh Market counts 90 local farmers among its members.

In addition to teaching farmers computing skills and converting a vacant plot into a demonstration garden, Will and his colleagues have introduced sustainable agriculture courses for adults and high school students. “It’s kind of a resurrection of our history,” says Lindy Abrams, a 25-year-old who, after losing her job and enrolling in Will’s adult-education class, now grows vegetables and salad greens on land her granddad once farmed. “People are really excited.”

— Jocelyn C. Zuckerman

From:

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/100124-making-family-farms-profitable.html

Why Big Ag Won’t Feed the World

by Josh Viertel

A year ago I sat in a room at the Earth Institute at Columbia surrounded by executives from big food companies. One of them, I believe from Unilever, clicked to a slide that read “The solution to global hunger is to turn malnutrition into a market opportunity.” The audience—global development practitioners and academics and other executives—nodded and dutifully wrote it down in their notebooks; I shuddered. The experience stayed with me and I haven’t gotten over it. Last month, I had a flashback.

On a Tuesday evening I sat in a room on the 44th floor of a building in the financial district of lower Manhattan with representatives from General Mills, Monsanto, Dean Foods, Deutsche Bank, and the Rainforest Alliance. We were there to speak to institutional investors—the hedge fund managers, bankers, and others who invest in big food companies—about sustainability and food. In particular, we were there to talk about how sustainability and hunger issues may give these companies both exposure to risk and access to opportunity.

    At first glance, these answers make both Monsanto and Deutsche Bank look virtuous. But they rest on a false premise.

It was not your average sustainable food panel discussion. Reflecting back on it, three things jump out at me. The first was a false premise that is taken for fact. The false premise:

Both Deutsche Bank and Monsanto made it clear that they are basing their business strategy on answering a simple question: How will we feed the world in 2050, when the population reaches over 9 billion and global warming puts massive strains on our resources? The answer for Deutsche Bank: increase yields by investing in industrial agriculture in the developing world, with an emphasis on technology; put lots of capital into rural land to shift subsistence and local market agricultures to commodity export agriculture. The answer for Monsanto: increase yields by decreasing resource dependence using genetically modified crops.

At first glance, these answers make both Monsanto and Deutsche Bank look virtuous. But they rest on a false premise: “There will be over 9 billion people by 2050. We have less than 7 billion today, and people go hungry. We need to increase food production if we are going to feed them.” Indeed, there will be over 9 billion people by 2050, and indeed, with less than 7 billion today, people still go hungry. But we don’t need to increase crop yields to feed these people. In 2008, globally, we grew enough food to feed over 11 billion people. We grew 4,000 calories per day per person—roughly twice what people need to eat.

Eric Holt Gimenez, of Food First (The Institute for Food and Development Policy) put it eloquently in a conversation earlier last year: “In 2008 more food was grown than ever before in history. In 2008 more people were obese than ever before in history. In 2008 more profit was made by food companies than ever before in history. And in 2008 more people went hungry than ever before in history.”

Hunger is not a global production problem. It is a global justice problem. We need to increase global equity, not global yields. There may be profit to be made in exporting our high-tech, input-reliant, greenhouse-gas-emitting agricultural systems to the developing world. But let us not pretend it will solve global hunger or address climate change. After all, high-tech, input-reliant, commodity agricultural is a major cause of global hunger and climate change.

So what changes are necessary for us to feed the world? In 2005, the World Bank, the FAO and the UNDP brought together 400 leading natural and social scientists, representatives from government (including the U.S.), private sector and non-governmental organizations to ask how we would feed the world in 2050. It’s called the IAASTD report, and it just came out last year.

The scientists concluded that genetically modified crops and chemical agriculture had failed to show much promise in feeding the world. They won’t be a big part of the solution. Instead, tomorrow’s agriculture will need to be much more regionally controlled and locally adapted, and will need a diversity of approaches to meet the challenges of climate change and resource scarcity. The result is a farming system that uses water frugally, sequesters carbon, and doesn’t require external inputs.

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists called Failure to Yield found that genetically modified crops have not delivered on increased yields. In fact, nearly all of the gains in yields over the last two decades can be attributed to other practices. Vast tracts of rainforest are indeed being cut down to plant commodity crops, particularly soy. This deforestation isn’t happening because the varieties are old, unimproved, and not intensive. These are acres of chemically farmed, genetically modified crops.

The IAASTD concluded that if we want to feed the world, we need regional ownership and control, locally adapted varieties and practices, and farmers to grow for subsistence and local markets—and we don’t need export commodities.

“So,” I said to the institutional investors, “I’ve got good news, and I’ve got bad news.” The good news is that feeding the world in 2050 is completely possible; these solutions are within reach. The bad news is that there isn’t a ton of money to be made by a small number of companies in doing it. You can make money investing in technology and putting great gobs of capital into rural land that currently doesn’t have it, but you will likely be exacerbating climate change and global hunger, not fixing it.”

This, of course, gets to the heart of what it means to help.

When I was a little boy, my dad was building a tool shed in our back yard. It looked like fun, and I had always wanted to use a hammer. I wandered out to help him as he sawed a two-by-four. I picked up a hammer and some nails and started pounding them, without any particular plan, into a piece of wood. My dad looked over at me and said, “Josh. Tell me, what are you doing?” “I’m helping.” I responded, completely sincerely. He gently explained to me that if you want to help, first you have to ask the people you want to help what they need. In this case, he told me, he could really use someone to sit on the sawhorse to hold down the piece of wood he was trying to saw, so it didn’t bounce all over the place. When I protested that that wasn’t nearly as fun as pounding nails, he agreed with me.

“You are welcome to pound nails into that board,” he explained. “Just don’t pretend you are helping me build this shed.” Yes, global hunger is a market opportunity; some corporations will make money treating it as such. But it in so doing they are about as likely to end hunger as seven-year-old me was to build a shed by pounding nails into a piece of plywood.

From: http://food.theatlantic.com/sustainability/why-big-ag-wont-feed-the-world-1.php

Save the Planet: Eat More Beef

By LISA ABEND

Grass feeding required Cattle on this Hardwick, Mass., farm grow not

on feedlots but in pastures, where their grazing helps keep carbon

dioxide in the ground

On a farm in coastal Maine, a barn is going up. Right now it’s little

more than a concrete slab and some wooden beams, but when it’s

finished, the barn will provide winter shelter for up to six cows and

a few head of sheep. None of this would be remarkable if it weren’t

for the fact that the people building the barn are two of the most

highly regarded organic-vegetable farmers in the country: Eliot

Coleman wrote the bible of organic farming, The New Organic Grower,

and Barbara Damrosch is the Washington Post’s gardening columnist. At

a time when a growing number of environmental activists are calling

for an end to eating meat, this veggie-centric power couple is

beginning to raise it. “Why?” asks Coleman, tromping through the mud

on his way toward a greenhouse bursting with December turnips.

“Because I care about the fate of the planet.”

Ever since the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a 2006

report that attributed 18% of the world’s man-made greenhouse-gas

emissions to livestock – more, the report noted, than what’s produced

by transportation – livestock has taken an increasingly hard rap. At

first, it was just vegetarian groups that used the U.N.’s findings as

evidence for the superiority of an all-plant diet. But since then, a

broader range of environmentalists has taken up the cause. At a

recent European Parliament hearing titled “Global Warming and Food

Policy: Less Meat=Less Heat,” Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argued that reducing meat

consumption is a “simple, effective and short-term delivery measure

in which everybody could contribute” to emissions reductions.

And of all the animals that humans eat, none are held more

responsible for climate change than the ones that moo. Cows not only

consume more energy-intensive feed than other livestock; they also

produce more methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – than other animals

do. “If your primary concern is to curb emissions, you shouldn’t be

eating beef,” says Nathan Pelletier, an ecological economist at

Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., noting that cows produce 13 to

30 lb. of carbon dioxide per pound of meat.

So how can Coleman and Damrosch believe that adding livestock to

their farm will help the planet? Cattleman Ridge Shinn has the

answer. On a wintry Saturday at his farm in Hardwick, Mass., he is

out in his pastures encouraging a herd of plump Devon cows to move to

a grassy new paddock. Over the course of a year, his 100 cattle will

rotate across 175 acres four or five times. “Conventional cattle

raising is like mining,” he says. “It’s unsustainable, because you’re

just taking without putting anything back. But when you rotate cattle

on grass, you change the equation. You put back more than you take.”

(See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)t works like this:

grass is a perennial. Rotate cattle and other ruminants across

pastures full of it, and the animals’ grazing will cut the blades –

which spurs new growth – while their trampling helps work manure and

other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich

humus. The plant’s roots also help maintain soil health by retaining

water and microbes. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground

and out of the atmosphere.

Compare that with the estimated 99% of U.S. beef cattle that live out

their last months on feedlots, where they are stuffed with corn and

soybeans. In the past few decades, the growth of these concentrated

animal-feeding operations has resulted in millions of acres of

grassland being abandoned or converted – along with vast swaths of

forest – into profitable cropland for livestock feed. “Much of the

carbon footprint of beef comes from growing grain to feed the

animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides,

transportation,” says Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s

Dilemma. “Grass-fed beef has a much lighter carbon footprint.”

Indeed, although grass-fed cattle may produce more methane than

conventional ones (high-fiber plants are harder to digest than

cereals, as anyone who has felt the gastric effects of eating

broccoli or cabbage can attest), their net emissions are lower

because they help the soil sequester carbon.

From Vermont, where veal and dairy farmer Abe Collins is developing

software designed to help farmers foster carbon-rich topsoil quickly,

to Denmark, where Thomas Harttung’s Aarstiderne farm grazes 150 head

of cattle, a vanguard of small farmers are trying to get the word out

about how much more eco-friendly they are than factory farming. “If

you suspend a cow in the air with buckets of grain, then it’s a bad

guy,” Harttung explains. “But if you put it where it belongs – on

grass – that cow becomes not just carbon-neutral but

carbon-negative.” Collins goes even further. “With proper management,

pastoralists, ranchers and farmers could achieve a 2% increase in

soil-carbon levels on existing agricultural, grazing and desert lands

over the next two decades,” he estimates. Some researchers

hypothesize that just a 1% increase (over, admittedly, vast acreages)

could be enough to capture the total equivalent of the world’s

greenhouse-gas emissions.

This math works out in part because farmers like Shinn don’t use

fertilizers or pesticides to maintain their pastures and need no

energy to produce what their animals eat other than what they get

free from the sun. Furthermore, pasturing frequently uses land that

would otherwise be unproductive. “I’d like to see someone try to

raise soybeans here,” he says, gesturing toward the rocky, sloping

fields around him.

By many standards, pastured beef is healthier. That’s certainly the

case for the animals involved; grass feeding obviates the antibiotics

that feedlots are forced to administer in order to prevent the

acidosis that occurs when cows are fed grain. But it also appears to

be true for people who eat cows. Compared with conventional beef,

grass-fed is lower in saturated fat and higher in omega-3s, the

heart-healthy fatty acids found in salmon.

But not everyone is sold on its superiority. In addition to citing

grass-fed meat’s higher price tag – Shinn’s ground beef ends up

retailing for about $7 a pound, more than twice the price of

conventional beef – feedlot producers say that only through their

economies of scale can the industry produce enough meat to satisfy

demand, especially for a growing population. These critics note that

because grass is less caloric than grain, it takes two to three years

to get a pastured cow to slaughter weight, whereas a feedlot animal

requires only 14 months. “Not only does it take fewer animals on a

feedlot to produce the same amount of meat,” says Tamara Thies, chief

environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

(which contests the U.N.’s 18% figure), “but because they grow so

quickly, they have less chance to produce greenhouse gases.”

To Allan Savory, the economies-of-scale mentality ignores the role

that grass-fed herbivores can play in fighting climate change. A

former wildlife conservationist in Zimbabwe, Savory once blamed

overgrazing for desertification. “I was prepared to shoot every

bloody rancher in the country,” he recalls. But through rotational

grazing of large herds of ruminants, he found he could reverse land

degradation, turning dead soil into thriving grassland.

Like him, Coleman now scoffs at the environmentalist vogue for

vilifying meat eating. “The idea that giving up meat is the solution

for the world’s ills is ridiculous,” he says at his Maine farm. “A

vegetarian eating tofu made in a factory from soybeans grown in

Brazil is responsible for a lot more CO than I am.” A

lifetime raising vegetables year-round has taught him to value the

elegance of natural systems. Once he and Damrosch have brought in

their livestock, they’ll “be able to use the manure to feed the

plants, and the plant waste to feed the animals,” he says. “And even

though we can’t eat the grass, we’ll be turning it into something we

can.”

From:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html

Read more great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-january-29th/

Non-GMO label getting a local push by Lundberg Family Farms

By HEATHER HACKING – Staff Writer

Posted Jan. 11th

RICHVALE — Lundberg Family Farms is among the leaders in a trend to label foods as non-GMO.

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms, which are created through transferring genes from one organism to another.

Most Americans consume genetically modified foods every day. The majority of soy, cotton, corn and canola grown in the United States contains genetically modified crops, most of which have been altered to resist pests and weeds.

Other genetically modified foods may contain higher nutrients, are more tolerant to adverse growing conditions or produce higher yields.

Previously there has been no organized system in the United States for people to know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs.

Over the past two years, Lundberg Family Farms, which produces organic rice products, and others in the organic industry have created a new labeling system and verification process to label foods as “non-GMO.”

The group is a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO project.

Grant Lundberg, chief executive officer of his family’s business in Richvale, said Lundberg Family Farms has long been opposed to genetically modified foods, created through biotechnology.

Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and soybeans, spread pollen easily and can cross-pollinate with other crops, Lundberg explained.

“There is the potential to lose a lot of genetic history because when a product is released, it is very hard to keep it contained,” Lundberg said.

Some food consumers have also had difficulty if they want to buy foods that do not contain genetic modifications.

About two years ago, the company that specializes in organic rice products joined other natural food companies to develop a nonprofit group to label non-GMO products, “to give the consumers an informed choice about what they are eating,” Lundberg said.

The program has set up a “supply chain from seed breeders all the way through to retailers and consumers,” he continued.

The program includes a third-party verification process, followed by inclusion of the non-GMO label.

“We know our customers have those concerns,” Lundberg said. “The person who goes into the natural food store has certain expectations of their food. Our hope for the project is that we’re creating a standard.”

Other companies that helped fund the labeling project include Whole Foods Market, Eden Organic, Nature’s Path and United Natural Foods.

Lundberg said many foreign countries, including Japan, Australia and the European Union, require labeling if products contain genetically modified foods, which creates a trade barrier for some U.S. products.

“The general U.S. ag policy has been pro-GMO,” Lundberg said.

Currently, 50 brands in the United States and Canada have signed up for the new non-GMO project, he said, accounting for about 3,000 products.

Part of the labeling criteria includes a protocol to trace, test and segregate foods used, said Megan Westgate, executive director for the Non-GMO Project, based in Southern California.

The standard chosen by the group is 0.9 percent or less GMOs in foods — the same standards used in the European Union, Westgate explained.

The goal of the program is to make testing very efficient, so companies that do not use genetically modified foods don’t end up spending a lot of money on testing.

For example, Westgate said, 91 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically modified. If a company uses soy oil, testing each truckload could cost up to $16,000 a year.

But if the soy oil is tested further up the supply chain, the cost for testing is greatly reduced, she said.

“We’re creating a structure in making non-GMO an affordable and practical thing.

“The most efficient place to test is when a crop is processed,” Westgate said.

In the next couple of months, companies will be using up the remainder of their packaging material and rolling out with the redesigned containers that include the non-GMO seal.

She said the hope is that people will see the labels and become more informed about GMOs.

From: http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14163467

Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO uprising

By Jeffrey Smith

Author and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology

Posted: January 8, 2010 05:26 PM

For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.

“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food “culprits” like fat and carbs “can even define the decade in which they were topical,” and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.

Vosburgh credits two recent launches with “the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced.” One is our Institute’s new non-GMO website, which, he says, “provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.'”

The other launch is the Non-GMO Project, offering “the country’s first consensus-based guidelines, which include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. . . . The organization also requires documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.”

He alerts supermarket executives that, “the growth of the organic (which bans GMO ingredients), local and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers who could be less tolerant of genetic modification.”

Please allow me to sit back with an I-told-you-so grin of satisfaction. Two years ago, I wrote a newsletter article describing three components that would move the market on GMOs:

1. The Non-GMO Project’s new “widely accepted definition for non-GMO” would spark a GMO cleanout, starting with the brands in the natural food industry.

    Our Institute endorses the Non-GMO Project and encourages food companies to enroll their products with this excellent nonprofit organization. Their official seal was introduced in October 2009 and has quickly become the national standard for meaningful non-GMO claims.

2. “Providing clear Non-GMO product choices” with our Non-GMO Shopping Guide would make it easier for consumers to select “non-GMO products by brand and category.”

    The same Guide is available as a website, a spread in magazines, a pocket guide, a two-sided download, and coming soon, a mobile phone application.

3. “Educating Health-Conscious Shoppers” about the health effects of GMOs is the key means by which GMOs will become a marketing liability—the next culprit.

From, and read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/emsupermarket-newsem-fore_b_416861.html

Will Organic farmers embrace GM crops to help feed the world?

Posted on: January 14, 2010 12:19 PM, by Pamela Ronald

In an interview with The Times, Gordon Conway, Professor of International Development at Imperial College London and a former government adviser said that the ban on organic farmers using GM crops was based on an excessively rigid rejection of synthetic approaches to farming and a misconception that natural ways were safer and more environment- friendly than man-made ones.

I completely agree with Gordon Conway that it makes sense for farmers to use the most powerful tools available to make their production more sustainable. Still, I think it unlikely in the short term that organic farmers will embrace the concept.

It is not that feeding the world, health of the consumers or care of the land are unimportant issues, it is just that the organic “brand” is now making a lot of money for all in the industry (Farmers, food processors, large corporate retailers such as Whole Foods, etc) and so there is zero incentive to change certification rules.

From: http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2010/01/will_organic_farmers_embrace_g.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

If you go to the link above, there are some great comments and I’m sure we could all add some more!  – Mom

Read more, great Real Food Friday posts here:  http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-january-22nd/

GMO’s in the news

Here’s some recent GMO news, from around the world.

GE FREE NORTHLAND (NZ) Press Release l0 December 2009

Local Communities Reject The Risks Of GMO Land Use

The telephone poll on genetic engineering, recently commissioned by the Northland/Auckland Councils, clearly shows Auckland and Northland residents seek stricter regulation of any genetically modified (GE) plants and animals grown in their areas (or an outright ban on such activities).

The GE poll results show that concerns are widespread and the councils on the Working Party have been vindicated in adopting a precautionary approach in response to the wishes of their communities. Two thirds or more of those questioned favor regulation that would make users of GMOs legally responsible for any environmental or economic harm

The poll found clear support from the Northland and Auckland communities for establishing a GE-Free Zone, meaning only producing food that is GM free.

GE FREE NORTHLAND supports Northland councils acting on a local level to put in place substantive rules protecting their constituents and the environment from GMO land use. Extended lobbying of central government to date has failed to produce any result and there are still inadequate rules to protect primary producers, consumers, and the environment from users of GMOs.

GE FREE NORTHLAND Chairman Martin Robinson said today he applauded the commitment of local government to address the critical GE issue, as central government continues to ignore the concerns of many eminent scientists, territorial authorities and our key markets, as well as the majority of New Zealanders.

“The government needs to listen to the community. It is time for a strategy to protect and manage the New Zealand brand. If we are to succeed as a country and profitably export food to the world, someone needs to be able to stop GE contamination, unsustainable factory farming, and the destruction of our international reputation which so many Kiwi primary producers rely on,” said Martin Robinson.

“It is critical that the interests of local government are protected and the wishes of their communities are addressed.”

Martin Robinson said genetic engineering and the lack of strict liability has galvanised Northlanders, with the issue raising one of the most serious biosecurity risks to the region.

Councils’ concerns about GE relate mainly to uncertainties over the economic risks to conventional and organic food producers, the uncertainties over who should bear liability relating to these risks, and the failure by central government agencies to perform professionally.

Without a strict liability regime, innocent third parties and local authorities remain at risk. Liability for unforeseen adverse effects of GE needs to be satisfactorily resolved before any GE experiments are permitted in Auckland/Northland peninsula.

The majority of New Zealanders don’t want to eat genetically engineered food, and they don’t want genetically engineered organisms released into their backyard.

Northland is a prime candidate for REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE designation, due to its geographical location and the risks GE presents to our economy and environment.

From: http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/

How to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs) food products

December 2, 12:18 PMRaleigh Environmental Health ExaminerMonica B

The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) launched a new website http://www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com that takes the guesswork out of how to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene-spliced food products. With polls indicating that 9 out of 10 Americans want GMOs labeled, 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. It also lists popular brands that don’t use ingredients from the eight GM crops such as GM soy and corn. It also lists dairy products that don’t allow the controversial GM bovine growth hormone.

If it’s not labeled organic, avoid products made with the “Big Four” GM crops: Corn, Soybeans, Canola, and Cottonseed, used in processed foods. Also, more than 50% of Hawaiian papaya is GM and a small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Also, become familiar with their  list of invisible GM ingredients and avoid sugar from GM Sugar Beets.

The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food. No follow-up studies were done. Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.

From: http://www.examiner.com/x-20990-Raleigh-Environmental-Health-Examiner~y2009m12d2-How-to-avoid-genetically-modified-organisms-GMOs-food-products

Choice Organic Teas to be Non-GMO Verified

SEATTLE—Choice Organic Teas is the first tea company to enroll as an official participant in the Non-GMO Project’s Verification Program. The company’s flagship “Original” product line is in the process of being verified, with other products to follow.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization created by leaders in all sectors of the natural and organic products industry from the United States and Canada to offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies. It began as a collaborative effort among independent natural food retailers who wanted to ensure their customers had an abundant selection of clearly labeled, independently verified non-GMO choices. The Project verifies all types of products, including those (like tea) that are not yet produced commercially in GMO form. This allows shoppers to easily identify non-GMO items, and also helps reduce the likelihood of new GMO crops being commercialized.

“We’re proud to be at the forefront of yet another critical issue facing our industry and our customers,” says Ray Lacorte, head of operations for Choice Organic Teas. “By supporting the Non-GMO Project we hope to inspire other manufacturers to seek alternatives to GMOs into the future.”

From: http://www.naturalproductsmarketplace.com/news/2009/12/choice-organic-teas-to-be-nongmo-verified.aspx

GMOs could affect wildlife

Students Samantha Butenas, Brian Noland, Kyle Plyman and Mark Wagner examined the effects of genetically modified organisms on wildlife around the world.

“While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have allowed for a new paradigm of development for agriculture, controversy remains as to the safety and potential adverse effects of GMOs on wildlife.

Insect populations in particular, whose destruction remains the object of many GMOs, have rapidly developed resistance to GMOs and the pesticides required for their maintenance. Genetically modified species of trees, also known as ‘Frankentrees,’ provide cause for concern about the potential imbalances that can result from GMOs.

In addition, genetically modified animals now allow for the realization of a ‘Frankenfuture’ of destructive potential for natural ecosystems and the wildlife they help to sustain.

Please visit our web site (http://gmorganism.webs.com) to learn more.”

From: http://media.www.unews.com/media/storage/paper274/news/2009/12/07/SpecialSection/Gmos-Could.Affect.Wildlife-3846983.shtml

And this is NOT good news:

Syngenta GMO maize finally approved for feed, food imports

Monday, 30 November 2009 15:05

After several months of impasse, Syngenta’s genetically modified maize type MIR604 has been finally approved by the European Commission today. The maize type has been authorised for food and feed uses as well as imports and processing in the EU (however growing it will not be allowed). The Commission says in a statement. Following to the EU’s decision, imports of soymeal and soybeans for animal feed could start again.

The request for authorization was addressed to EU Council after that the European Committee for Human Food and Animal Feed failed to find an agreement about the proposal – not in favor nor against it. Accordingly to the current legislation, the authorization request has then went back to the European Commission, which today has finally approved it.

“The MIR604 maize received a positive safety assessment from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – which has been hit by recent polemics – and underwent the full authorisation procedure set up in the EU legislation”, the Commission said.

From: http://en.greenplanet.net/food/gmo/1182-syngenta-gmo-maize-finally-approved-for-feed-food-imports.html

 * By Ken Roseboro, ed.

      The Organic and Non-GMO Report, November 2009

      Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Agro-ecologist Don Lotter published a paper titled “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” in the 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

The paper makes a damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and “public” universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops. Lotter calls the introduction of GM foods the “largest diet experiment in history.”

Lotter has a Ph.D. in agro-ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. He has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC-Davis.

Lotter does not have a tenured position and is currently working on an agricultural project in Tanzania. He half-jokingly describes his paper as “career destroying” because he says it will be difficult to find a position at a US university due to the general recognition at most US universities that GM foods are safe and will help “feed the world.”

If you thought publishing the paper would jeopardize your prospects for finding a position, why did you write the paper?

DL: I’m proud of the paper. This topic should be taught at universities. There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue.

The science of genetic engineering is based on the one gene-one protein doctrine. Please describe this and why you think it is flawed.

DL: When they discovered the technology there was a simplified view that genes were in charge of the production of proteins. It is the entire basis for going forward with genetic engineering technology.

Then the Human Genome Project showed that humans have fewer genes than simple organisms, but we also have one to two million proteins. This discovery put an end to the one gene-one protein doctrine.

But by then there had been a massive investment in transgenics. The industry moved ahead with all their PR of “feeding the world” without any scientific basis for their technology. The doctrine has crumbled away, yet the industry has gone on.

In your paper you say that the process of genetically engineering foods is also deeply flawed. Can you give some examples of why that is the case?

DL: The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it’s not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function; they are enormously important. This is a huge flaw, but not even the biggest in crop transgenics.

The process of splicing genes into plant genomes, transgenics, causes serious genetic damage-mutations, multiple copies of the transgenic DNA, gene silencing. The ramifications of this damage, incredibly, have never been elucidated or even explored for that matter.

Do you think the increase in food allergies we are seeing may be due to GM foods?

DL: Yes, there is evidence pointing to it. The industry is powerful enough to stop any labeling legislation. Without labeling they can’t track these problems. We know that after the introduction of GM soy in Britain, there was an increase of soy allergies there.

In your paper, you write that the lack of oversight of GM foods has been a major failure of US science leadership. What makes you believe this?

DL: In the early 1980s, the biotech companies were successful in getting to oversee the regulation of GM foods. The scientific community should have stepped in, and said this is a radical technology, but it didn’t.

There has also been a restructuring of the relationship between industry and universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (which gives universities intellectual property control of their inventions) made universities more dependent on industry.

Universities saw transgenics as a big money source, and scientists who objected were harassed or pushed out.

Do you think any US university would fund studies on GM food safety?

DL: No, they are not doing that. Anyone who tries to conduct research looking at GM food safety is given trouble.

Universities should have a mandate to find problems with GM foods.

We need federal money to look at non-proprietary solutions, such as organic farming systems, to the world’s problems, and we should see whether proprietary approaches (i.e. GM foods) cause problems.

Unfortunately, non-proprietary solutions don’t get funding.

We can show that organic farming systems promote drought resistance; the Rodale Institute did this research. But if a GM crop had been found to resist drought, there would have been major news headlines saying that it will save the world.

Is the safety of GM food considered a given at US universities?

DL: Absolutely. The debate is not there. US scientists have abdicated their responsibility on this issue. They know problems exist but they don’t want to talk about them. Most scientists say we need GM foods to feed the world.

Some social scientists are saying there are problems (with GM foods).

I think undergraduate groups will bring the debate over GM foods to universities.

What type of agricultural approaches do you think will solve the world’s food production challenges?

DL: The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) report said that we can produce food using agro-ecological methods and successful green revolution methods. The report didn’t include transgenics.

The report was signed by 60 countries, but the US didn’t sign it.

Read more great Fight Back Friday posts here:  http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-december-4th/

I hope everyone had a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.  We had dinner at home with friends and family gathered here.  It was a wonderful holiday.  I am thankful for our family and friends.

We made our first Heritage turkey, which was very good and made our usual holiday side dishes, roasted sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, stuffing, gravy, green beans and cranberry sauce. We found an organic cranberry sauce this year, which was wonderful. I am thankful for the amazing meal we enjoyed together.

Today we are making a turkey broth, with a recipe from Tender Grassfed Meat, by Stanley Fishman. I am grateful to Stanley for writing this book. We are using it more and more in our daily cooking.

Last June we got four baby chicks.

This is Goldie getting a tummy rub. It alway put her to sleep when she was little. When the girls were bigger we move them to their coop.  I love this coop and highly recommend it if you are in a suburban area and would like a few backyard chickens.

The girls are our pets. I bring them oatmeal mixed with kefir every morning. They are loved and spoiled! LOL   Every morning when I bring them breakfast (they have organic chicken food available at all times in their coop), I check for eggs. Lately I’ve been telling the girls they are slacking as they’re now 24 weeks old and we still haven’t had any eggs. This  morning when brought breakfast out, as I do everyday, I checked the nest.  And there was a beautiful green egg!  We have two Barred Rock chickens and Two Easter egger chickens and we were convinced that that Luna, one of our BR’s would be the first to lay.  Barred Rocks lay brown eggs. But low and behold, sweet Goldie was fussing in the nest and she was the first to lay.  It was very exciting.

Now along with the fresh organic vegetables from our garden and the great box of fruit and veggies from our CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm, we are on our way to having fresh organic eggs. I am thankful for our eggs!

And, last but not least, I  am thankful for Moms For Safe Food.  I have learned so much and met so many great people since starting Moms.  I am grateful for all the other food bloggers and writers who are helping to teach people what real food is and how to prepare it.  I am thankful for all of you.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving – Sheri aka Mom