USDA gives half million in taxpayer dollars to AquaBounty to promote GM salmon

(NaturalNews) Biotechnology company AquaBounty has had quite a bit of trouble getting quick regulatory approval for its genetically-modified (GM) salmon, called AquAdvantage, because the “frankenfish” is not always sterile as claimed and could spread its corrupted genes into the wild. So in order to help move things along, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has awarded the company nearly $500,000 in taxpayer funds to conduct research on how to fully sterilize the fish, according to Grist . Neither the USDA nor the FDA seem to care that the public remains overwhelmingly opposed to AquaBounty’s GM salmon regardless of whether or not it is sterile. Not only do consumers not want to eat the fake fish, which has been shown to be highly allergenic, but they also most certainly do not want their hard-earned cash handed over to AquaBounty on a silver platter to ensure that the unwanted salmon eventually makes it to grocery store shelves (http://www.naturalnews.com/GM_salmon.html). But this is exactly what the USDA has done. While AquaBounty’s president and CEO Ronald L. Stotish sneers at those who rightfully oppose his company’s intention to force dangerous GM salmon into the food supply against the will of the people, the USDA is busy giving the company the people’s money. And eventually, this generous donation may result in AquAdvantage getting full approval, rather than plunging into oblivion as it was on course to do. In other words, American taxpayers are now subsidizing the research and development that AquaBounty itself cannot afford to undertake. The company, after all, has already lost $2.8 million and three board members since its inception, as it has failed to produce a safe product that appeals to, well, anyone. So now the government is artificially propping up the failing company with a cash infusion to ensure that AquAdvantage eventually makes its way to market. The US government, of course, has absolutely no business using taxpayer dollars to fund the development of a GM fish that nobody in the public wants to see released, and definitely does not want to consume. AquaBounty was well on its way to extinction, as it should have been, until the nation’s corrupt regulatory bodies decided to intervene and change its course. Commenting on the FDA’s potential approval of the GM salmon, regardless of whether or not a sterile version is developed, Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, said it best. Grist quotes him as saying that it is “reckless for the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon given the large number of environmental, human health, animal welfare and economic risks that have been raised by scientists, members of Congress and members of the FDA’s own Advisory Committee.” Sources for this story include: http://www.grist.org/food/2011-09-29-feds-help-gmo-salmon-swim-upstream

USDA trying to run organic leafy green growers out of business

(NaturalNews) Results of the passage of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, are beginning to come into play — and in this case the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), rather than the FDA, has decided to take the helm. A recent Action Alert posted by the Cornucopia Institute (CI) warns that current efforts by handlers and marketers of green leafy vegetables are attempting to formulate one-size-fits-all “food safety” standards for the entire industry that threaten to put small, organic growers at a competitive and economic disadvantage. They may even put small, family-scale growers out of business. NaturalNews and many other news sources put out repeated warnings last year about the ill intentions of S. 510, including that the small growers would be uprooted by its provisions if it passed (http://www.naturalnews.com/S_510.html). Now that it has, we are beginning to see the consequences of this bill come into play. Difficult guidelines for all growers, are being proposed. According to the alert, corporate agribusiness is attempting to form a “National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement” with the USDA that will allegedly set standards to help prevent contamination and disease outbreaks. But as many NaturalNews readers already know, leafy greens are not dangerous. It is large-scale factory animal farms that pollute air and water that are mostly to blame. The USDA, which is in support of the new agreement, is accepting public comments until July 28. Now is the time to address the agency with opposition to its proposal’s one-size-fits-all standards that unfairly disadvantage all growers. You can also remind the USDA that unnatural feeding and raising practices utilized by factory animal farms are the root cause of contamination outbreaks, not leafy greens. CI has developed a convenient list of talking points that you can use when submitting your comments to the USDA, which you will find at the following link: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/06/action-alert-big-agusda-could-run-organic-leafy-green-growers-out-of-business/. You will also find a sample letter that you can customize in your own voice as well. To submit comments to the USDA about the proposed leafy green standards, visit: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=AMS-FV-09-0029-0150 CI is also urging the public to contact the USDA’s Melissa Schmaedick, author of the proposal, by emailing her at: Melissa.Schmaedick@ams.usda.gov. Be sure to put “AMS-FV-09-0029″ in the subject line. You can also mail comments to the USDA at: Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1031-S Washington, DC 20250-9200 Again, be sure to reference docket “AMS-FV-09-0029″ in whatever correspondence method you choose to take. To view the entire CI Action Alert with even more details about the USDA proposal, visit: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/06/action-alert-big-agusda-could-run-organic-leafy-green-growers-out-of-business/

Health Ranger to host Alex Jones show Thursday, featuring Julie Bass, the Michigan woman facing jail time for planting a garden

(NaturalNews) Tune in to www.PrisonPlanet.com this Thursday at 11am central time (12 noon New York time) as I host the Alex Jones show with a special day of astonishing breaking news about health freedom. Alex is taking the day off, and he asked me to fill in, so I’ve put together an amazing lineup of guests to bring you three hours of hard-hitting health freedom journalism courtesy of the Alex Jones Show. First up is Julie Bass , the Michigan woman who is currently facing 90 days of jail time for her “crime” of planting a vegetable garden in her own front yard. Julie plans to join us by phone, and we’ll get the latest update on her situation dealing with the bureaucratic tyrants in Oak Park, Michigan. In another segment, GMO expert Jeffrey Smith will join us for an update on the latest breaking news with the USDA and GMOs. There has been a disturbing new decision rendered by the USDA that may mean all GMOs will no longer be regulated , and we’ll get Jeffrey’s take on that situation during the show. Finally, we will also be joined by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord , author of The Rise of Tyranny , who will help us interpret the FDA’s latest efforts to outlaw virtually all nutritional supplements formulated after 1994. Jonathan Emord is best known as the only U.S. attorney to have defeated the FDA seven times . Catch all these groundbreaking interviews — plus Paul Watson , Aaron Dykes and fresh news analysis — on the Alex Jones Show this Thursday at 11am central time (12 noon New York time). Listen in (free!) at www.PrisonPlanet.com You can also watch the live TV broadcast by joining as a member at www.PrisonPlanet.TV (which is ridiculously inexpensive). This will also give you access to the entire archives of Alex Jones’ shows, as MP3 files with all the commercials edited out. See you on Thursday!

USDA fines family four million dollars for selling bunny rabbits

(NaturalNews) When the Dollarhite family of Nixa, Mo., first started raising and selling bunnies as part of a lesson to teach their teenage son about responsibility and hard work, they had no idea they would eventually meet the heavy hand of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to a recent article covered in Breitbart’s Big Government , the USDA recently ordered the Dollarhite family to pay more than $90,000 in fines because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a year — and if they fail to pay the fine by Monday, May 23, the fine will multiply to nearly $4 million. It all started back in 2006 when John Dollarhite and his wife Judy rescued two rabbits that ended up breeding. The family cared for and raised the new rabbits, and eventually began to sell them to neighbors, friends, and others for $10 or $15 each. Having started by first selling the animals for meat, and later for show, the Dollarhites carefully and humanely raised the small creatures on their three-acre homestead, all while teaching their son honest values in a business environment similar to running a small lemonade stand. Eventually, the Dollarhites developed such a highly-respected reputation across Missouri that the popular Branson, Mo., theme park Silver Dollar City, and even a local pet store, Petland, began purchasing bunnies from the family in 2009. And according to John, individuals from both Silver Dollar City and Petland, as well as a rabbit competition judge, told him that the family’s bunnies were among the best they had ever seen — healthy, beautiful, and very well-cared for. All seemed well until a USDA inspector showed up at the family’s home in the fall of 2009, and asked to do a “spot inspection” of the rabbitry. The inspector made no indication that anything was amiss, but only that she wished to see the facility. After meandering the premises, the inspector claimed that a few very insignificant aspects of the raising facility were in violation of USDA standards, even though the Dollarhites were not USDA certified, nor were they required to be. She then asked if the Dollarhites wished to be part of the voluntary USDA certification system, upon which they told her they would look into it. After the inspector left, the Dollarhites heard nothing more from the USDA until January 2010 when a Kansas City-based USDA inspector called the family and said he needed to have a meeting with them because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a single year. When the Dollarhites asked why this was a problem and what law this violated, the man refused to offer an explanation over the phone. Upon meeting in person, the inspector said he was only there to investigate the rabbitry and take notes for a report, upon which he instructed the family to contact another USDA office if they failed to hear anything further from the USDA after six weeks. As the eighth week arrived without any communication, John called the office and was redirected to the Washington, DC, office where a lady shockingly and bluntly explained to him that she had his report, and that the USDA planned to prosecute him and his family “to the maximum that we can” in order to “make an example” out of him. Shortly thereafter, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ordering them to pay a fine of $90,643 for supposedly violating a mystery law that prohibits the selling of more then $500 in rabbits within a year, even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law, did not sell their rabbits across state lines, and raised their rabbits humanely and in excess of minimum requirements. The letter outlined that the Dollarhites had until May 23 to pay the exorbitant fine, or else face additional fines totaling nearly $4 million — all for selling about $4,600 worth of rabbits that netted the family a mere $200 in profits. The whole scenario proves, once again, that the USDA is nothing more than a tag-team terrorist duo with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies’ insatiable lust for power and control over private affairs is never satisfied, as they continue to prowl around like bloodthirsty predators seeking whoever and whatever they can devour. When will Americans finally stand up to their tyranny and say enough is enough? To read the full account of the Dollarhite saga, visit: http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/05/20/family-facing-4-million-in-fines-for-selling-bunnies/ To contact the APHIS division of the USDA responsible for this mess and express your thoughts on the matter, write, call, or email: USDA/APHIS/AC 4700 River Road, Unit 84 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 ace@aphis.usda.gov (301) 734-4978 You can also read a follow-up to the original story that includes a response from the USDA here: http://bobmccarty.com/2011/05/19/usda-stands-behind-hare-raising-fine/

Monsanto pesticide found to infect plants with AIDS-like disease

(NaturalNews) When Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University and internationally-recognized plant pathologist, wrote a letter back in January to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, warning him about a new mystery disease showing up primarily in genetically-modified (GM) crops, the notice fell on deaf ears. Research conducted by a team of senior plant and animal scientists found that Monsanto’s glyphosate chemical, which is the primary ingredient in its popular RoundUp herbicide formula, appears responsible for infecting plants with an AIDS-like syndrome that destroys their immunity, blocks their absorption of certain vitamins and minerals, and eventually kills them. Dr. Huber explains in his letter that the destruction caused by glyphosate does not appear limited to plants, either — animals and humans alike that consume foods tainted with the chemical, or that are exposed in some other way to it, are potentially susceptible to developing the same autoimmune disorder. For this reason, Dr. Huber urged the USDA to further investigate RoundUp, as well as to deny the deregulation of GM alfalfa. You can read a copy of Dr. Huber’s letter for yourself here: http://es-la.facebook.com/notes/wood-prairie-farm/the-complete-text-of-dr-don-m-hubers-letter-to-usda-secretary-vilsak/197340006962367 The key factor of Dr. Huber’s discovery was a microscopic pathogen specifically prevalent in GM crops. The pathogen, he explained in an interview with Food Democracy Now! (FDN) as well as in his letter, is common. But an apparent weakening of plant immunity by glyphosate makes plants treated with the chemical more susceptible to contracting the harmful pathogen. And as a result of exposure, large swaths of GM farmland have died, and many animals that feed on GM-tainted meal have become infertile or have had abortions. But instead of listening to the scientifically sound advice of Dr. Huber and withholding deregulation of GM alfalfa until more intense safety studies could be conducted, the USDA decided to ignore it all and approve the “Frankencrop” anyway. To watch the full video interview between FDN and Dr. Huber, visit: http://vimeo.com/22997532 Sources for this story include: http://www.bnet.com/blog/food-industry/mystery-science-more-details-on-the-strange-organism-that-could-destroy-monsanto/3052

USDA to allow Monsanto to perform its own GMO studies

(NaturalNews) Last August, a federal judge admonished the USDA for approving genetically modified seeds without first doing the required environmental impact study. Now, the USDA has a solution–allow the biotech industry to conduct the studies itself. This means that Monsanto and other biotech companies will decide whether to approve their own products. In the case brought last August by environmentalists and the Center for Food Safety, Federal Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act in deregulating Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet seeds in 2005 and banned planting of the crop until the environmental impact study was complete. The USDA ignored the ban, according to Popular Science (http://bit.ly/kc8H9M), and ignored White’s subsequent order to destroy the crops once they had been planted. The USDA ignored the directives because, according to a recent Grist article (http://bit.ly/fniqCr) it worried a GMO sugar beet ban would cause sweetener prices to rise. “Thus the USDA places the food industry’s right to cheap sweetener for its junk food over the dictates of a federal court” Grist says. Roundup Ready sugar beets would likely not stand up to an independent environmental impact assessment, the Grist article noted. Sugar beets are largely grown in an area of Oregon the produces crops closely related to sugar beets, such as chard. The GM beets could damage the organic and non-GMO crops through cross-pollination. Also, problems with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide would likely come to light. Heavy applications of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on its other herbicide-resistant GM crops, such as corn and soy, have created the increasing problem of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” According to another Grist article (http://bit.ly/9unbhp), farmers had to abandon thousands of acres in the South due to new strains of giant pigweed. The article also showed a major ingredient in Roundup to be much more harmful to the environment than previously proclaimed. Part of the reasoning for the USDA to allow the biotech industry to do its own studies is that a draft environmental assessment can cost anywhere from $60,000 to $1 million, Grist says. Letting companies do the studies would save money and fast-track the process. Critics of GM crops argue the set-up is likely to result in biased and inaccurate information, according to agriculture journal Capital Press. By allowing biotech developers to conduct their own environmental assessments, the process becomes subject to conflicts of interest, said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “It’s like asking BP to write an assessment of an offshore drilling operation,” he said. “The pilot program basically treats the environmental review process as a ‘rubber stamp’ for getting biotech crops to market more quickly.” Sources for this article include: Grist: USDA moves to let Monsanto perform its own environmental impact studies on GMOs — http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-04-19-usda-to-let-monsanto-do-own-environmental-impact-studies-on-gmos Grist: USDA downplays own scientist’s research on ill effects of Monsanto herbicide — http://www.grist.org/article/usda-downplays-own-scientists-research-on-danger-of-roundup Capital Press: USDA plans to outsource biotech studies — http://www.capitalpress.com/mobile/mp-biotech-process-041511 Popular Science: Government Says Biotech Companies Can Be Their Own Safety Testers, Letting the fox guard the henhouse? — http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/government-oks-biotech-companies-performing-their-own-environmental-tests

USDA refuses to enforce organic standards, allows synthetic omega-3s in Horizon organic milk

(NaturalNews) The US Department of Agriculture is once again deliberately shirking its responsibility to properly oversee the integrity of the certified organic program. After admitting in a recent letter that a chemically-derived, synthetic omega-3 fatty acid additive produced by Martek Biosciences Corporation is not legitimately organic, the USDA also said it does not plan to take any enforcement action against companies that use it in certified organic products. The Cornucopia Institute (CI), a leading organic industry watchdog, continues to call the USDA out on the matter, exposing the fact that the additive not only has a questionable safety record, but also does not belong in any organic product. The saga dates back to around 2002 when practically every major brand of infant formula began fortifying its blends with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA), two omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids naturally found in human breast milk. Manufacturers began to claim these blends were superior than others, and the closest thing to actual human breast milk (http://www.naturalnews.com/027437_DHA_baby_formula_Martek.html). The primary type of DHA and ARA used in the formulas, however, is the same laboratory-grown, synthetic variety made by Martek, which is now showing up in Horizon organic milk products. A CI report explains that Martek’s synthetic DHA/ARA blend is created using genetically-modified organisms (GMO), and then extracted using the toxic chemical hexane. Since the time of its approval, there have been hundreds of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the additive causing serious health problems in children and babies (http://cornucopia.org/DHA/DHA_FullReport.pdf). If that is not bad enough, the USDA has known since 2006 that manufacturers were illegally adding the Martek additive to organic baby formulas. Though the agency initially sent letters to the offending manufacturers ordering them to stop using the additive, a later Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the agency ended up caving to corporate lobbyists by agreeing to permit the unapproved additive in organic formulas. Now, the Horizon brand of organic dairy products has begun illegally adding the unapproved chemical additive to some of its milk products — and the USDA says it can continue to do so for an indefinite period of “phase-out” time. CI says it may file a lawsuit against the USDA for its negligent stance on the issue, which flagrantly violates the agency’s own organic standards and compromises the integrity of the entire organics program And to top it off, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recently proposed allowing any synthetic additive to be freely added to organic products without having to be properly reviewed. NOSB will debate and vote on the proposal at its next meeting in Seattle, April 26-29, 2011. To voice your opposition against this heinous proposal, use the CI Action Alert here: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/keep-questionable-synthetic-additives-out-of-organics/ Sources for this story include: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/industry-watchdog-dumbfounded-by-usda%E2%80%99s-failure-to-enforce-organic-law/

Obama proposes to significantly cut funding for organic conservation programs

(NaturalNews) Last year 44 North Dakota farms and ranches were able to either convert to organic, or improve organic production methods, thanks to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). But these and other programs that promote organic conservation are threatened by proposals from the Obama administration to significantly cut or eliminate the budgets of these programs, all while the administration continues to support the multibillion-dollar federal subsidies for genetically-modified (GM) cash crops like corn and soy. This year, the USDA allocated a modest $50 million to EQIP for its Organics Initiative, which offers a 75 percent share of the cost of implementing organic conservation methods to qualifying farmers, and a 90 percent cost share to those pursuing organic conversion who have limited resources or are “socially disadvantaged.” The program helps hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers and ranchers every year convert to or improve upon organic production methods, which results in better food for all. But if the Obama administration has its way in the 2012 federal budget, EQIP and other organic conservation programs could be all but gutted of a significant proportion of their funding in future years, which will greatly cripple the growth of the organic sector. Farming is a tough business, especially when considering that billions of taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize crops like corn, soy, and cotton — most of which are now GM varieties — and make them artificially inexpensive in the marketplace. Organic farmers, on the other hand, face significant challenges both in converting to organics and operating a successful business in the midst of the artificial food subsidization scheme. Programs like the Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program (OTIRP), for instance, which funds research into organic agriculture, play a critical role in helping organic farmers to be successful and meet market demand. The programs also beckon minimal budgetary requirements every year. And though House and Senate appropriations bills were able to preserve $5 million in funding for OTIRP in 2011, the Obama administration has proposed eliminating the program altogether. Organic programs represent a very small drop in the bucket of overall USDA expenditures. They require far less than farm subsidies, for instance, which propagate unhealthy, GM food. But instead of working to promote organics, the Obama administration has made it clear with its budget proposals that, despite all of its pre-election campaign rhetoric, it is an enemy of organics and a friend of Big Agriculture. Sources for this story include: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/17933/ http://ofrf.org/action/ofan/100913_update.html#story5 http://deltafarmpress.com/government/obama-budget-direct-payment-changes-conservation-program-cuts

Non-GMO Project responds to OCA over GMOs, coexistence and effective activism

(NaturalNews) There’s been a war of words brewing lately between Ronnie Cummins at the Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.org) and Whole Foods, which has reluctantly embraced a philosophy of “coexistence” between GMO and non-GMO crops. The term “coexistence,” of course, is misleading all by itself. It’s really more of an “invasion” because GMO crops inevitably cross-contaminate non-GMO crops. Through a number of articles, many posted here on NaturalNews, Ronnie Cummins has also expressed discontent with the Non-GMO Project (www.nongmoproject.org). The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization that works to end GMOs in the marketplace, or at least to require their honest labeling if they cannot be eliminated from the food supply. So why the fuss? It would seem that everybody’s on the same page here, right? Well, not so fast. One of the things I’ve always admired about Ronnie is that he’s a purist. He calls for zero GMOs in the food supply, without compromises and without so-called “coexistence” in agriculture. There’s a lot of value in this position. I share it, in fact, and I don’t believe that GMOs should ever be grown in open fields, and they certainly should never be used in foods consumed by people or animals. This position, however, collides with the practicalities of organizations like Whole Foods, which — let’s all admit — sells all sorts of products containing GMOs. While Whole Foods seems to support anti-GMO efforts in theory, it ultimately ended up settling for the coexistence stance. Banning GMOs entirely from Whole Foods stores would empty many of the store shelves there. That’s why, to many observers, Whole Foods appears to have caved in on this issue and decided to accept the USDA’s pro-GMO position. This frustrates people like Ronnie Cummins, who of course want all GMOs to be banned from the food supply — a goal that NaturalNews shares. This is probably what led Ronnie to go after the Non-GMO Project, as he most likely saw the group as not doing enough to fight against GMOs. Personally, I can’t really go along with Ronnie’s characterization of the Non-GMO Project as a “greenwashing” group, but I definitely do share Ronnie’s frustration when the USDA seems to be on a kind of GMO rampage and some in the industry (such as Whole Foods) don’t seem to be voicing sufficiently strong opposition to it. What does the Non-GMO Project say? In the interests of bringing in a fresh perspective on all this, we’re publishing the rebuttal of Megan Westgate with the Non-GMO Project. The original text is posted on their website (http://www.nongmoproject.org/2011/01/29/team-organic-will-never-surrender-to-monsanto-now-we-continue-the-fight-together/) and is entitled, “Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto: Now We Continue the Fight, Together.” The publishing of this rebuttal (below) is in no way intended to stir up disagreement within the organic industry, but rather to help readers understand why passions run so high on this issue — and why the GMO question is so crucial for our long-term health and sustainability here on planet Earth. Personally, I believe the Non-GMO Project has a valuable role to play in this effort to halt the GMO contamination of our world , just as the Organic Consumers Association does, and the Institute for Responsible Technology as well. I hope we can all find a way to pull in the same direction on these crucial issues, because when we bicker amongst ourselves on the natural side of things, it distracts us from the far greater enemies out there such as Monsanto, a corporation that, in my view, is an enemy of life on our planet . Our position here at NaturalNews is, first, the mandatory labeling of GMOs in the food supply followed by the complete removal of GMOs from the food supply . The first goal is readily attainable. The second is much more challenging. As part of our effort to achieve the first, we’re teaming up with Ronnie Cummins on February 24th, 7pm Central Time, to launch an online webinar event that involves thousands of volunteers who will join us in slapping GMO labels on foods sitting on shelves in the grocery stores! If the food industry won’t label their foods accurately, we’ll do it for them! Register for the event now at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22535.cfm Here’s the rebuttal from Megan Westgate. It does not contain the hyperlinks of the original article, so I encourage you to actually read it at the source: http://www.nongmoproject.org/2011/01/29/team-organic-will-never-surrender-to-monsanto-now-we-continue-the-fight-together/ Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto: Now We Continue the Fight, Together I am no stranger to the rush of radical activism, to the satisfaction of identifying an enemy and throwing heart and soul into righteous indignation. In this complicated world, it’s tempting to reduce shades of gray to simple black and white. Sometimes that’s the only way to achieve a reassuring sense that we know where we stand (and therefore who we are). As a college student a decade ago, I devoted endless hours to organizing protests against the Keck Graduate Institute, the first university in the world dedicated solely to biotechnology. When we successfully shut down their inaugural celebration, I wrote about it in the Earth First! Journal. In 2001 I attended the Ruckus Society’s “Biojustice” Action Camp, where I learned about the threats posed by the new science of genetic engineering, and how to scale a building or lock myself to the axle of a car if an action called for those skills. It was all incredibly exhilarating, and my friends and I did accomplish some things of lasting value, including the protection of what remains one of the largest plots of endangered Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in Los Angeles County. As time passes, though, what I cherish most from my early activist days is not the rush of combat, but the satisfaction I experienced in collaborating with like-minded allies. The true power behind everything we accomplished came from our ability to work together as a team. In the wake of the USDA’s recent decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa, it is that power — the power of unification with like-minded allies — that we must seek. The understandable (and completely justified) feelings of anger, frustration and helplessness that the organic community is experiencing must be directed constructively. We are too small and up against too much for there to be any other way forward. Leading up to the ruling, a broad coalition of organic organizations and companies were working around the clock in an attempt to influence the USDA’s decision. The USDA had already made it clear that alfalfa would be deregulated, but hope remained that there might be some way to soften the blow. Organic Valley, Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farm, along with many others in the organic community, were doing everything in their power to secure protections for organic farmers so that if their fields were contaminated once the GMO alfalfa was released, biotechnology companies for the first time would be held accountable for their pollution and would be forced to pay for the damages. These groups were also pushing for measures to protect seed purity so that non-GMO alfalfa supplies could be maintained. Unfathomably, these tireless organic organizations are now being criticized for their efforts. In total denial of the incontrovertible fact that the USDA was never even remotely considering a full ban on GMO alfalfa, some are suggesting that these groups’ efforts to make the most of a bad situation *somehow* (though no one is very specific on how, exactly) signals corruption, and are even calling for boycotts. HOW ON EARTH is taking this out on 1200 organic family farmers going to help anything?! This is divisiveness we cannot afford. Of the whole circular firing squad that’s been exploding in recent days, most shocking to me personally was a statement by Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association that the Non-GMO Project “is basically a greenwashing effort.” Say what?! Cummins goes on to say that the Project is unnecessary for organic products, since they are already “basically free from GMOs,” while “failing to focus on so-called ‘natural’ foods.” Totally wrong on both counts! First of all, the hard truth is that organic foods are not necessarily “free” of GMOs. While the National Organic Program (NOP) identifies genetic modification as an excluded method, GMOs are not a prohibited substance. This means that although GMO seeds are not supposed to be planted, and GMO ingredients are not supposed to be used, no testing is required under the NOP. With the majority of key crops like soy and corn being planted with GM varieties in North America, contamination of seeds and ingredients is a real risk, even for certified organic products. It is critical to understand that the ONLY way to identify (and control) GMO contamination is through testing, in combination with other best practices. The organic standards do not require testing; the Non-GMO Project Standard does. Over half of the companies participating in the Non-GMO Project produce certified organic products. These companies have chosen Non-GMO Project Verification in addition to their organic certification because they are committed to keeping their products non-GMO, and are concerned that organic certification is not adequate. Many organic companies joined the Project after their internal GMO testing indicated a growing risk of contamination. With regard to natural products, there are literally thousands of them enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, so I fail to see how we are “failing to focus” on them. As an example, Whole Foods has their entire 365 product line, organic AND natural enrolled in the Non-GMO Project. This commitment means that they are requiring testing of every single GMO risk ingredient used in every single one of their house brand products, both organic and natural. As a founding member of the Non-GMO Project, Whole Foods made a point from the very beginning of ensuring that this program would be available for not only their organic products, but their natural ones, too. Their commitment is exemplary. In fact, it is exactly the sort of positive action step that Cummins called for in his recent article. Okay, so I’ll admit it — this is where I got really confused. After talking trash about the Non-GMO Project and its founders, Cummins, whose support is important to me, says “We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products.” Oh hey, good idea! Let’s do that! I know: we can create a non-profit to oversee standards, third party verification, and consistent labeling so that consumers can have full transparency about companies’ non-GMO practices. We can call it the Non-GMO Project, and it can be the most effective tool in North America for stopping the unchecked flow of GMOs into natural and organic products. Oh, wait a minute… Yes, that’s right, how wonderful for everyone — all of that work has already been done. Yay! As a founding board member of the Non-GMO Project, and its first (and only) Executive Director, I have been working on exactly this strategy virtually non-stop for the last four years, along with a huge group of passionate, determined, and highly-principled people and organizations, and I have to admit I feel pretty darn good about what we are accomplishing. I am loath to even dignify the “greenwashing” accusation with a response, but I guess I should. So please consider this: Since being handed my first article about the deadly impact of GMO corn pollen on monarch larvae in 1999, when I was 19 years old, I have been moved to action on the GMO issue. Following my activism in college, I worked as the Outreach Coordinator at the Food Conspiracy Co-op in Tucson, AZ, where I saw firsthand how much confusion there was in the public about GMOs, and how bad the situation was getting. With the government consistently ignoring consumer calls for labeling, and organic products increasingly at risk, a group of small retailers decided it was time to take matters into our own hands. That was the beginning of the Non-GMO Project, and those of us who started it were motivated by one thing: the desire to make sure that Americans did not lose the right to eat non-GMO food. Our efforts are finally starting to pay off, though the battle is far from over. Because of the Non-GMO Project, hundreds of farmers, processors and manufacturers across North America are learning how to control GMO contamination as much as is possible, and consumers are finally being given an informed choice in the form of the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label. It’s just barely not too late. I do this work because when I start having children in a few years, I want to make sure that they can eat non-GMO food for their whole lives. I am also doing this because I am a person of exceptional moral integrity who believes it is my duty to do what I can to serve the greater good, and food and health are my passion. This is not an easy undertaking, and it will not succeed without the full support of everyone who cares about stopping GMOs. Since Thursday’s ruling, far too much anger and blame has been directed in entirely the wrong direction. It’s time to take a step back, remember that we are all on the same team, and get smart about our next steps. For my part, I am going to make a donation to the Center for Food Safety, so that they can get the USDA back into court ASAP, and then I’m going to spend the weekend catching up on running the Non-GMO Project. I hope I don’t get waylaid by any more baseless criticism; none of us can afford it. The health of our children, our grandchildren, and our environment is at stake, so let’s take good care of each other and give this our best.

Exposed: Fake Chinese organics try to slip into US market

(NaturalNews) There seems to be no shortage of fraud coming out of China these days, with a recent report issued by the non-profit Cornucopia Institute (CI) stating that a certain Chinese agricultural supplier has attempted to export fake organic products into the U.S. The report states that the supplier forged fake organic certification documents in an effort to capitalize on the large and growing U.S. market for organic products. According to the report, the Chinese agricultural marketer attempted to sneak non-organic products into the U.S. using fake certifications that appeared to be issued by the National Organic Program (NOP), the official USDA certification standard for organics. The supplier also forged the name of a French USDA accredited certifying agency in the documents as well. “Unfortunately, this incident … serves as a stark reminder that imports from China are fraught with peril,” said Mark A. Kastel, co-director of CI. Charlotte Vallaeys, lead author of the report, added that the incident “illustrates why so many responsible processors and marketers in the organic industry shun organic imports.” The announcement comes at the same time as another recent media report has been issued concerning Chinese companies mass producing and selling fake, plastic rice (http://www.naturalnews.com/031344_plastic_rice.html). And this is all on top of numerous other Chinese cases of melamine contamination of food, fake drugs, and toxic farmed fish that have all made headlines in recent years. Many are urging the USDA to take a more active approach in ensuring that anything coming from China, especially food products that are supposedly organic, be fully inspected and regulated. Some are even calling for an immediate moratorium on all organic imports from China. Sources for this story include: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/02/usda-uncovers-plot-to-import-fake-chinese-organic-food/

« Previous Page — Next Page »