It's been all over the news . . . the first peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effects of consuming genetically engineered corn was recently released. Rats that were fed genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" corn developed massive mammary tumors, liver and kidney disease, and premature death. Of course, some geneticists are criticizing the study and calling it "flawed," but at the very least this should spur on further independent studies and prove the need for labeling of GE foods . . . if only to be able to track any possible ill effects.
If you live in California, it is so important that you vote YES on Proposition 37 to mandate labeling of GE foods. It could set a precedent that other states will follow. In the meantime, to make sure you don't consume GE products, buy organic.
Showing posts with label genetic engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetic engineering. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Take a Stand--Support our Right to Know!
In recent weeks, several public interest groups, including the Organic Consumers Association, Cornucopia Institute, Mercola.com, and Natural News, have pointed out the gross hypocrisy and greed of large food and beverage corporations selling billions of dollars of organic and natural food, while meanwhile bankrolling the industry opposition to GMO labeling. These organic and “natural” traitor companies and brands include:
- Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
- General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
- Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
- Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
- Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
- Safeway (“O” Organics);
- Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
- Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic,
- Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).
All of these companies are profiting from the sale of billions of dollars of their proprietary organic and “natural” food brands while at the same time funneling large sums of money to the Monsanto-led campaign to defeat the November 6th GMO labeling ballot initiative (Proposition 37) in California. We need to send a clear message to these traitor brands, in the only language they understand: lost profits and lower sales. Today, the Organic Consumers Association and Mercola.com are formally calling for a boycott of 7 organic and “natural” brands.
The above is reprinted from The Organic Consumers Association. Click here to read the full article. And I hope you'll join me in boycotting those brands.
- Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
- General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
- Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
- Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
- Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
- Safeway (“O” Organics);
- Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
- Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic,
- Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).
All of these companies are profiting from the sale of billions of dollars of their proprietary organic and “natural” food brands while at the same time funneling large sums of money to the Monsanto-led campaign to defeat the November 6th GMO labeling ballot initiative (Proposition 37) in California. We need to send a clear message to these traitor brands, in the only language they understand: lost profits and lower sales. Today, the Organic Consumers Association and Mercola.com are formally calling for a boycott of 7 organic and “natural” brands.
The above is reprinted from The Organic Consumers Association. Click here to read the full article. And I hope you'll join me in boycotting those brands.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Consumers have the right to know!
If you are in California and debating on how to vote on the Label GMO Initiative . . . here is some information that may help with your decision . . . and remember, a vote to Label GMOs is not saying your are pro-gentically enginneered foods or against them . . . just that you believe it is our right as consumers to know what is in our food and how it is grown so we have the choice whether to buy and consume those foods.
California’s “Label GMO” Proves Pro-GMO Camp Wrong
Key Argument of the Pro-GMO Camp Dismantled by New Legal Analysis
July 10, 2012 — A grassroots initiative that will be on the ballot in September promises to give Californians the right to know whether they are consuming foods with genetically engineered ingredients. The rest of the country is watching this legislation carefully, since if California requires such labeling, national food manufacturers will likely use the labels in other states as well.
Proponents of the initiative point to the numerous scientific studies indicating that GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, can cause genetic changes in mammal offspring. “Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed genetically engineered soy and corn,(1)” said Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for the Alliance for Natural Health USA.
One of the main charges against the “right to know” initiative, according to the website StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com—the funding for which comes in part from the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow, and other GMO companies—is that the initiative would “create…frivolous and costly lawsuits” and would lead to abusive “bounty hunter”–style lawsuits that allow plaintiffs to keep a “bounty” of 25% of civil penalties collected. Critics point to the many abusive lawsuits that were spawned by Proposition 65, a California initiative passed in 1986 that concerns toxic chemicals.
However, a recent legal analysis of the Label GMO initiative has found that it would not in fact spawn frivolous lawsuits the way Prop 65 has.
The paper, authored by noted legal scholar Dr. James C. Cooper, a former Federal Trade Commission official and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason School of Law, found that the Label GMO initiative contains “important differences [which] substantially reduce the potential for Label GMO to foster the type of abusive private litigation associated with Proposition 65.” The paper also determined that the initiative offers California businesses multiple exemptions and greater legal certainty, allows businesses time to cure GMO labeling violations, and does not include the controversial bounty fees found in other California laws.
“The opponents of GMO labeling have been misleading the public and the media,” said DuBeau. “The opposition is playing fast and loose with the truth, and this paper is a wake-up call. Now there’s no excuse for the biotech companies’ misinformation. They are entitled to their own opinions—not their own facts.”
The report’s (http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop65-and-GMO-Label-Initiative.pdf) key findings:
- Label GMO provides seven years in which producers can gradually reduce the GMO exposure of their products from no more than 5% to zero.
- So long as food or supplement producers have a sworn statement from their supplier stating that, to the supplier’s best belief, there are no GMO elements in their ingredients, the producer is immune from suit.
- The producer is also immune from liability if the food is certified organic and certified GMO-free by an independent organization. No doubt it will make sense for food producers to help create an independent certifier.
- Once a violation has been identified, the producer has 30 days in which to correct it, in which case there is no liability.
- There is no “bounty” for plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits.
“The Label GMO initiative is very popular with California voters. Opponents know this, and are doing whatever they can to defeat it,” DuBeau noted. “This report soundly disproves one of the opposition’s main arguments, and exposes their campaign’s use of scare tactics.
“It’s all about citizens’ right to know what’s in the food they’re eating,” DuBeau concluded. “Is anything more basic—or reasonable—than that?”
For more information, go to The Alliance for Natural Health.
California’s “Label GMO” Proves Pro-GMO Camp Wrong
Key Argument of the Pro-GMO Camp Dismantled by New Legal Analysis
July 10, 2012 — A grassroots initiative that will be on the ballot in September promises to give Californians the right to know whether they are consuming foods with genetically engineered ingredients. The rest of the country is watching this legislation carefully, since if California requires such labeling, national food manufacturers will likely use the labels in other states as well.
Proponents of the initiative point to the numerous scientific studies indicating that GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, can cause genetic changes in mammal offspring. “Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed genetically engineered soy and corn,(1)” said Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for the Alliance for Natural Health USA.
One of the main charges against the “right to know” initiative, according to the website StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com—the funding for which comes in part from the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow, and other GMO companies—is that the initiative would “create…frivolous and costly lawsuits” and would lead to abusive “bounty hunter”–style lawsuits that allow plaintiffs to keep a “bounty” of 25% of civil penalties collected. Critics point to the many abusive lawsuits that were spawned by Proposition 65, a California initiative passed in 1986 that concerns toxic chemicals.
However, a recent legal analysis of the Label GMO initiative has found that it would not in fact spawn frivolous lawsuits the way Prop 65 has.
The paper, authored by noted legal scholar Dr. James C. Cooper, a former Federal Trade Commission official and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason School of Law, found that the Label GMO initiative contains “important differences [which] substantially reduce the potential for Label GMO to foster the type of abusive private litigation associated with Proposition 65.” The paper also determined that the initiative offers California businesses multiple exemptions and greater legal certainty, allows businesses time to cure GMO labeling violations, and does not include the controversial bounty fees found in other California laws.
“The opponents of GMO labeling have been misleading the public and the media,” said DuBeau. “The opposition is playing fast and loose with the truth, and this paper is a wake-up call. Now there’s no excuse for the biotech companies’ misinformation. They are entitled to their own opinions—not their own facts.”
The report’s (http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop65-and-GMO-Label-Initiative.pdf) key findings:
- Label GMO provides seven years in which producers can gradually reduce the GMO exposure of their products from no more than 5% to zero.
- So long as food or supplement producers have a sworn statement from their supplier stating that, to the supplier’s best belief, there are no GMO elements in their ingredients, the producer is immune from suit.
- The producer is also immune from liability if the food is certified organic and certified GMO-free by an independent organization. No doubt it will make sense for food producers to help create an independent certifier.
- Once a violation has been identified, the producer has 30 days in which to correct it, in which case there is no liability.
- There is no “bounty” for plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits.
“The Label GMO initiative is very popular with California voters. Opponents know this, and are doing whatever they can to defeat it,” DuBeau noted. “This report soundly disproves one of the opposition’s main arguments, and exposes their campaign’s use of scare tactics.
“It’s all about citizens’ right to know what’s in the food they’re eating,” DuBeau concluded. “Is anything more basic—or reasonable—than that?”
For more information, go to The Alliance for Natural Health.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
More on antibiotics and meat
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the problems of antibiotic abuse on factory-farmed animals. Since the FDA doesn't seem to be doing much about this problem, The Center for Food Safety is hope consumers and retailers will stand up against this abuse. Since Trader Joe's responded positively to pleas to eliminate genetically-engineered ingredients in their products several years ago, they are a great place to start on this campaign. Click on this link to sign a petition urging Trader Joe's to "source and sell only meat and poultry raised without antibiotics."
Friday, June 15, 2012
Right to Know on Ballot!
It's official! The California Secretary of State's office announced that the Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods will be on the November ballot for California. This would be the first law in the United States requiring labeling of a wide range of genetically engineered foods.
The initiative requires labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - which are plants or meats that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration occurs in a laboratory and is not found in nature.
Polls show nearly unanimous support across the political spectrum for labeling of genetically engineered foods. Nine out of ten voters in the U.S. and in California back labeling, according to recent polls (see Mellman 2012, Reuters 2010, Zogby 2012).
I hope you will vote for this initiative in November. It's not about whether you are for or against genetic engineering . . . but that you believe that we, as consumers, have the right to know what is in the food we eat, where it comes from, and how it was grown. This article has more information.
The initiative requires labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - which are plants or meats that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration occurs in a laboratory and is not found in nature.
Polls show nearly unanimous support across the political spectrum for labeling of genetically engineered foods. Nine out of ten voters in the U.S. and in California back labeling, according to recent polls (see Mellman 2012, Reuters 2010, Zogby 2012).
I hope you will vote for this initiative in November. It's not about whether you are for or against genetic engineering . . . but that you believe that we, as consumers, have the right to know what is in the food we eat, where it comes from, and how it was grown. This article has more information.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Dangers of Monsanto's Bt corn
According to the Organic Consumers Organization, if you're eating the typical American diet, you are most likely consuming a large amount of genetically-modified foods . . . primarily through consumption of animals that were fed GMO crops. In fact, Monsanto's insecticide-producing bacterial DNA survives human digestion and is now found in the blood of more than 80% of North American women - and their fetuses! The health risks of exposure to the GMO Bt genes is unknown, but Monsanto's own study of rats fed Bt crops showed liver and kidney damage.
Monsanto's genetically modifed corn has been engineered to produces Bt insecticide in every cell of the plant. Monsanto alleged that farmers could plant Bt crops and not have to spray them with pesticides, but corn rootworms are now developing resistance. Scientists warn of massive yield loss and surging corn costs if the EPA doesn't act quickly to drastically reduce Bt crops' acreage and force Monsanto to make non-GMO varieties of its high-yielding hybrid corn available to farmers. In fact, France just placed a temporary ban on Monsanto's MON810 corn because of environmental concerns. Check out the full article here.
Let the EPA know they should ban crops that are genetically engineered to produce pesticides.
For more information about the dangers of eating genetically modified foods, check out this Dr. Oz video.
Also, to help get mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products on the ballot in California, click here.
Monsanto's genetically modifed corn has been engineered to produces Bt insecticide in every cell of the plant. Monsanto alleged that farmers could plant Bt crops and not have to spray them with pesticides, but corn rootworms are now developing resistance. Scientists warn of massive yield loss and surging corn costs if the EPA doesn't act quickly to drastically reduce Bt crops' acreage and force Monsanto to make non-GMO varieties of its high-yielding hybrid corn available to farmers. In fact, France just placed a temporary ban on Monsanto's MON810 corn because of environmental concerns. Check out the full article here.
Let the EPA know they should ban crops that are genetically engineered to produce pesticides.
For more information about the dangers of eating genetically modified foods, check out this Dr. Oz video.
Also, to help get mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products on the ballot in California, click here.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Victory for milk labeling
Companies like Monsanto and Eli Lilly don't want consumers to know if their milk and other dairy products come from cows treated with bovine growth hormones. They've tried to keep growth hormone-free products from being labeled as such by lobbying the FDA, suing dairy farmers, and urging governments to curtail farmers' freedom of speech.
Now I guess I can understand why these companies have a vested interest in keeping the information about the growth hormones a secret, given the public's aversion to it . . . but why in the world has the state of Ohio been trying to "rBGH-free" and "produced without artificial growth hormones" labels from dairy products. Yup, it's true -- they tried to make it illegal to tell consumers how their milk was produced.
Well, in 2010, a Sixth Circuit court decided that milk produced with synthetic hormones is different than milk produced without it. The court found:
- A compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk.
- The use of rBGH (rbST) in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things.
- rBGH (rbST) use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative energy phase." Milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins.
- Milk from rBGH-injected cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality.
But Ohio was still trying to get around the ruling and figure a way to keep labeling illegal . . . however, according to an Oct. 31st Sacramento Bee article, "The State of Ohio today agreed that it will no longer pursue regulations limiting labeling on organic dairy products."
This is a real victory toward consumers gaining the right to know what is in their food and how it's produced. Hopefully, this is a step toward getting all foods produced by genetically engineering to be labeled.
Now I guess I can understand why these companies have a vested interest in keeping the information about the growth hormones a secret, given the public's aversion to it . . . but why in the world has the state of Ohio been trying to "rBGH-free" and "produced without artificial growth hormones" labels from dairy products. Yup, it's true -- they tried to make it illegal to tell consumers how their milk was produced.
Well, in 2010, a Sixth Circuit court decided that milk produced with synthetic hormones is different than milk produced without it. The court found:
- A compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk.
- The use of rBGH (rbST) in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things.
- rBGH (rbST) use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative energy phase." Milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins.
- Milk from rBGH-injected cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality.
But Ohio was still trying to get around the ruling and figure a way to keep labeling illegal . . . however, according to an Oct. 31st Sacramento Bee article, "The State of Ohio today agreed that it will no longer pursue regulations limiting labeling on organic dairy products."
This is a real victory toward consumers gaining the right to know what is in their food and how it's produced. Hopefully, this is a step toward getting all foods produced by genetically engineering to be labeled.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Deception in the Natural Cereal Industry
There is a huge difference between cereals labeled "organic" and those labeled "natural" according to a report done by the Cornucopia Institute. The word "natural" is basically a marketing ploy to get us to think the product is safer and healthier than regular cereals, but there is no regulation or really even a definition of what "natural" means. "Natural" cereals contain ingredients grown on conventional farms where the use of toxic pesticides and genetically engineered organisms is widespread. In fact the Cornucopia Institute tested cereals by leading natural brands including Kashi and Mothers (now owned by Kellogg and Pepsico) and found that they contained high levels of genetically engineered ingredients.
Many companies that offered organic cereals are switching to conventionally-grown ingredients and calling their products "natural." Barbara's and Annie's have drastically reduced their organic cereal offerings . . . so don't assume the cereal you've always eaten is still organic . . . be sure to check the label and buy only those with the USDA organic seal, not those trying to mislead consumers.
To make the deception even worse, the supposedly "natural" cereals are often priced higher than regular cereals. Watch this short video to find out more and check out this cereal scorecard to see how your cereal rates.
Many companies that offered organic cereals are switching to conventionally-grown ingredients and calling their products "natural." Barbara's and Annie's have drastically reduced their organic cereal offerings . . . so don't assume the cereal you've always eaten is still organic . . . be sure to check the label and buy only those with the USDA organic seal, not those trying to mislead consumers.
To make the deception even worse, the supposedly "natural" cereals are often priced higher than regular cereals. Watch this short video to find out more and check out this cereal scorecard to see how your cereal rates.
Monday, October 03, 2011
October is NON-GMO Month
According to the Organic Consumers Association:
- In 2011, Monsanto added sweetcorn, sugar beets and alfalfa to the list of GMO crops that already included field corn, cotton, canola, soy, and papaya - without regulations to protect organic farmers from contamination and no labels to respect consumers' right to know.
- However, also in 2011, Monsanto couldn't hide its failure any longer. Its GMO crops toppled over and were strangled in the fields, attacked by the very insects and weeds they were genetically engineered to resist.
October, 2011 is Non-GMO Month. You can get involved. Check out these sites for more information:
California: LabelGMOs.org
NYC to DC - Oct 1-16 - The Right2Know March
Austin, TX - Oct 2 - Rally for Real Food
Nationwide - Oct 15 & 16 - Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day Events
- In 2011, Monsanto added sweetcorn, sugar beets and alfalfa to the list of GMO crops that already included field corn, cotton, canola, soy, and papaya - without regulations to protect organic farmers from contamination and no labels to respect consumers' right to know.
- However, also in 2011, Monsanto couldn't hide its failure any longer. Its GMO crops toppled over and were strangled in the fields, attacked by the very insects and weeds they were genetically engineered to resist.
October, 2011 is Non-GMO Month. You can get involved. Check out these sites for more information:
California: LabelGMOs.org
NYC to DC - Oct 1-16 - The Right2Know March
Austin, TX - Oct 2 - Rally for Real Food
Nationwide - Oct 15 & 16 - Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day Events
Thursday, June 02, 2011
10 Scary Reasons to Avoid GMOs (or at least require labeling)
This is from the Organic Consumers Organization newsletter--10 Scary Reasons to Avoid GMOs (based on this article):
#1 Monsanto's Bt-toxin, in its Bt-producing GMO corn and cotton (used in food in the form of cottonseed oil), was found by Canadian doctors in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of the umbilical blood of their babies.
#2 The authors of the Canadian study conclude that the women and their babies were exposed to Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin through a "normal" non-organic Canadian diet, including non-organic (so-called "natural" and "conventional") meat, egg, and dairy products from animals fed Bt corn.
#3 Monsanto's GMO "Bt" corn and cotton plants are engineered to produce a insecticide in every cell of the plant that kills insects by breaking open their stomachs.
#4 Mice fed Monsanto's Bt corn had elevated levels of immune system substances that are also higher in humans who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, allergies, Lou Gehrig's disease, autoimmune disease, and colitis.
#5 Young mice in the same study had elevated T-cells, which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases.
#6 Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin has properties of known allergens - it actually fails the World Health Organization's allergen screening tests.
#7 Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin has been found to bind with the small intestines in mice and with intestinal tissue in rhesus monkeys.
#8 In addition to its GMO "Bt" crops which are engineered to produce insecticide, Monsanto also produces GMO "RoundUp Ready" crops, engineered with a bacterial DNA that allows it to survive otherwise deadly doses of its herbicide RoundUp.
#9 In the only human feeding study ever published on GMOs, Monsanto's GMO "RoundUp Ready" soybeans were found to transfer Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" DNA to the bacteria living inside human intestines.
#10 According to Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, the transfer of Monsanto's GMO Bt DNA to human digestive bacteria could create a "living pesticide factory" that could be responsible for the "increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders - since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market."
If you are concerned, there are ways to take action here.
#1 Monsanto's Bt-toxin, in its Bt-producing GMO corn and cotton (used in food in the form of cottonseed oil), was found by Canadian doctors in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of the umbilical blood of their babies.
#2 The authors of the Canadian study conclude that the women and their babies were exposed to Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin through a "normal" non-organic Canadian diet, including non-organic (so-called "natural" and "conventional") meat, egg, and dairy products from animals fed Bt corn.
#3 Monsanto's GMO "Bt" corn and cotton plants are engineered to produce a insecticide in every cell of the plant that kills insects by breaking open their stomachs.
#4 Mice fed Monsanto's Bt corn had elevated levels of immune system substances that are also higher in humans who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, allergies, Lou Gehrig's disease, autoimmune disease, and colitis.
#5 Young mice in the same study had elevated T-cells, which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases.
#6 Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin has properties of known allergens - it actually fails the World Health Organization's allergen screening tests.
#7 Monsanto's GMO Bt-toxin has been found to bind with the small intestines in mice and with intestinal tissue in rhesus monkeys.
#8 In addition to its GMO "Bt" crops which are engineered to produce insecticide, Monsanto also produces GMO "RoundUp Ready" crops, engineered with a bacterial DNA that allows it to survive otherwise deadly doses of its herbicide RoundUp.
#9 In the only human feeding study ever published on GMOs, Monsanto's GMO "RoundUp Ready" soybeans were found to transfer Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" DNA to the bacteria living inside human intestines.
#10 According to Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, the transfer of Monsanto's GMO Bt DNA to human digestive bacteria could create a "living pesticide factory" that could be responsible for the "increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders - since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market."
If you are concerned, there are ways to take action here.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Help get GMOs out of Trader Joes
According to Trader Joes website, "Our customers can be assured that all products in Trader Joe's private label are sourced from non-genetically modified ingredients. Our efforts began in 2001, when we determined that, given a choice, our customers would prefer to eat foods and beverages made without the use of genetically engineered ingredients. Our process has been to identify any product containing ingredients that could potentially be derived from genetically engineered crops and work with our suppliers to replace offending ingredients with acceptable alternatives."
So that's good, you can feel pretty sure if you buy their private label you are not getting GMOs--but other products in their store contain genetically engineered ingredients, like Morningstar Farms, which admits that all but one of their products (the Breakfast Patties Made with Organic Soy) contain genetically modified organisms, and Tofutti, which uses non-GMO soy protein, but admits that other ingredients, like the partially hydrogenated (trans fat) soybean oil in their Better Than Cream Cheese, are genetically modified.
If you want to take action and ask Trader Joes to make their store GE free--or at least label products containing GMOs, send a message to them here.
So that's good, you can feel pretty sure if you buy their private label you are not getting GMOs--but other products in their store contain genetically engineered ingredients, like Morningstar Farms, which admits that all but one of their products (the Breakfast Patties Made with Organic Soy) contain genetically modified organisms, and Tofutti, which uses non-GMO soy protein, but admits that other ingredients, like the partially hydrogenated (trans fat) soybean oil in their Better Than Cream Cheese, are genetically modified.
If you want to take action and ask Trader Joes to make their store GE free--or at least label products containing GMOs, send a message to them here.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Governments are protecting farmers against GMO
Unfortunately, not the US government. But in South America, wide-spread health and environmental disasters have forced them to take action. In Europe, less than .06 percent are planted with GM crops. See the full article here.
Friday, March 04, 2011
BOCA Burgers made with GE soy
If you are avoid genetically-engineered foods, you may want to stay away from BOCA burgers. The BOCA website's FAQ page says:
"We're committed to providing you with great-tasting products made with the highest-quality soy. It's a fact that much of the high-quality soy grown in the U.S. has been genetically engineered, so the traditional BOCA line of soy-based products may contain ingredients derived from these crops."
They go on to say that BOCA has a non-GMO line as well, but according to the Organic Consumers Association, "these products are neither certified organic (organic prohibits GMOs) nor monitored by the Non-GMO Project, so it's impossible to verify BOCA's non-GMO claims."
I recommend avoiding any soy products that are not certified organic. If you really want a quick veggie burger, try my 15-minute veggie burger. It's so nice to know exactly what's in your burger.
"We're committed to providing you with great-tasting products made with the highest-quality soy. It's a fact that much of the high-quality soy grown in the U.S. has been genetically engineered, so the traditional BOCA line of soy-based products may contain ingredients derived from these crops."
They go on to say that BOCA has a non-GMO line as well, but according to the Organic Consumers Association, "these products are neither certified organic (organic prohibits GMOs) nor monitored by the Non-GMO Project, so it's impossible to verify BOCA's non-GMO claims."
I recommend avoiding any soy products that are not certified organic. If you really want a quick veggie burger, try my 15-minute veggie burger. It's so nice to know exactly what's in your burger.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
GE Alfalfa
Things are not looking good for the battle against the approval of genetically engineered alfalfa, which has been going on for the last 12 years. There is a good possibility it will be approved--thanks to our very pro-biotech USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.
And the solution is not as easy as simply avoiding alfalfa sprouts. GE alfalfa could have major consequences for so many foods. Alfalfa is feed to dairy and meat animals . . . and when you buy dairy and meat, you can be sure it's not going to have a label saying that the animals had been fed genetically engineered products. In addition, even if you consume organic or grass-fed animal products, there is no way to guarantee that the alfalfa they ate wasn't contaminated with the GE variety. There is just no way to keep the genetic engineered alfalfa from contaminating the non-GE kinds.
GE alfalfa is engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide--so the chemical herbicide can be applied liberally through all stages of the plant growth, causing much more of this herbicide to be used. (Just like the roundup-ready soy that has been grown for some years now). Not only do the plants and soil become saturated with the chemicals, the overuse of Roundup is creating "superweeds" which have become resistant to the chemical--similar to the problem with the overuse of antibiotics.
So what can you do???? Call President Obama at (202) 456-1111 and urge him to instruct Secretary Vilsack to reject the approval of Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa.
Here are some articles with more information:
www.rodale.com
Organic Consumers Assocation
And the solution is not as easy as simply avoiding alfalfa sprouts. GE alfalfa could have major consequences for so many foods. Alfalfa is feed to dairy and meat animals . . . and when you buy dairy and meat, you can be sure it's not going to have a label saying that the animals had been fed genetically engineered products. In addition, even if you consume organic or grass-fed animal products, there is no way to guarantee that the alfalfa they ate wasn't contaminated with the GE variety. There is just no way to keep the genetic engineered alfalfa from contaminating the non-GE kinds.
GE alfalfa is engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide--so the chemical herbicide can be applied liberally through all stages of the plant growth, causing much more of this herbicide to be used. (Just like the roundup-ready soy that has been grown for some years now). Not only do the plants and soil become saturated with the chemicals, the overuse of Roundup is creating "superweeds" which have become resistant to the chemical--similar to the problem with the overuse of antibiotics.
So what can you do???? Call President Obama at (202) 456-1111 and urge him to instruct Secretary Vilsack to reject the approval of Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa.
Here are some articles with more information:
www.rodale.com
Organic Consumers Assocation
Thursday, December 30, 2010
NEW True Food Shoppers' Guide
Here's a helpful guide I found that you might like: The True Food Shoppers' Guide to Avoiding GMOs--just updated for 2011. Go HERE to download a free PDF and there are also instructions to getting it as an APP for your iPhone or Android.
Here's a small excerpt:
GRAINS, BEANS & PASTA
Other than corn, no GM grains are sold on the market. Look for 100-percent wheat pasta, couscous, rice, quinoa, oats, barley, sorghum, and dried beans (except soybeans).
Non-GMO
Amy's
Annie's
Bob's Red Mill, organic line
Casbah (Hain-Celestial)
Dr. McDougall's Right Foods
Eden certified organic grains
Fantastic Foods
Field Day
Ian's Natural Foods
Kamut
Lotus Foods
Lundberg Family Farms
Organic Planet
Rising Moon
Seeds of Change (organic meals)
Sensations
Sunridge Farms
Trader Joe's store brand
Vita-Spelt pasta
Whole Foods 365
May Contain GMO Ingredients
Betty Crocker meals (General Mills)
Knorr (Unilever)
Kraft Macaroni & Cheese meals
Near East (Quaker Oats Company / Pepsico)
Pasta Roni and Rice-A-Roni meals (Quaker Oats Company/Pepsico)
Here's a small excerpt:
GRAINS, BEANS & PASTA
Other than corn, no GM grains are sold on the market. Look for 100-percent wheat pasta, couscous, rice, quinoa, oats, barley, sorghum, and dried beans (except soybeans).
Non-GMO
Amy's
Annie's
Bob's Red Mill, organic line
Casbah (Hain-Celestial)
Dr. McDougall's Right Foods
Eden certified organic grains
Fantastic Foods
Field Day
Ian's Natural Foods
Kamut
Lotus Foods
Lundberg Family Farms
Organic Planet
Rising Moon
Seeds of Change (organic meals)
Sensations
Sunridge Farms
Trader Joe's store brand
Vita-Spelt pasta
Whole Foods 365
May Contain GMO Ingredients
Betty Crocker meals (General Mills)
Knorr (Unilever)
Kraft Macaroni & Cheese meals
Near East (Quaker Oats Company / Pepsico)
Pasta Roni and Rice-A-Roni meals (Quaker Oats Company/Pepsico)
Saturday, November 06, 2010
GE Salmon could be approved!
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquAdvantage transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption. This GE Atlantic salmon is genetically engineered to produce growth hormones year-round which is supposed to make it grow at twice the normal rate.
Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. In addition, the human health impacts of eating GE fish are entirely unknown, and the scientific research that has been done is alarming. According to the Center for Food Safety, these GE farmed salmon carry with them all of the health hazards of other farmed salmon, but also may be more susceptible to disease than fish currently grown in aquaculture facilities because transgenic fish are identified as “macro-mutants” with a reduced ability to survive. Consequently, the amount of antibiotics given to transgenic fish may be higher than the amount currently given to farmed fish; already farmed salmon are given more antibiotics than any other livestock by weight, threatening the health of those who eat them and the continued efficacy of these antibiotics to treat human disease.
There is a short window of time to let the FDA know you want them to reject these GE fish, or at the very, very least label them so consumers will know what they are buying. Click on this link to tell the Food and Drug Administration not to approve GE salmon.
Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. In addition, the human health impacts of eating GE fish are entirely unknown, and the scientific research that has been done is alarming. According to the Center for Food Safety, these GE farmed salmon carry with them all of the health hazards of other farmed salmon, but also may be more susceptible to disease than fish currently grown in aquaculture facilities because transgenic fish are identified as “macro-mutants” with a reduced ability to survive. Consequently, the amount of antibiotics given to transgenic fish may be higher than the amount currently given to farmed fish; already farmed salmon are given more antibiotics than any other livestock by weight, threatening the health of those who eat them and the continued efficacy of these antibiotics to treat human disease.
There is a short window of time to let the FDA know you want them to reject these GE fish, or at the very, very least label them so consumers will know what they are buying. Click on this link to tell the Food and Drug Administration not to approve GE salmon.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
GE Corn at Templeton Farmers' Market
According to the Atascadero News,the North County Farmers’ Market Association passed a new rule last November that would require any vendor selling genetically engineered produce to label the produce as such. Well, according to Jesse Arnold, a member of SLO GE-Free, he was at the Templeton Farmers' Market last Saturday (9/18/10) and genetically engineered corn was being sold--and the only label it carried was "yellow corn." (According to Arnold, the grower told him it was Monsanto BT corn.)
As a consumer, I would be very upset if I found out I'd served genetically engineered corn, which has pesticides engineered into every cell of every kernel, to my family--especially if I trusted the Farmers' Market Association to enforce their ruling.
Please contact Board Chairman Mike Broadhurst at 924-1260 or Market Manager Sandra Dimond at 748-1109 and ask them to enforce their ruling--even better, ask them to stand up against genetically-engineered produce, which is bad for our environment and bad for consumers, and keep GE products out of our farmers' markets.
As a consumer, I would be very upset if I found out I'd served genetically engineered corn, which has pesticides engineered into every cell of every kernel, to my family--especially if I trusted the Farmers' Market Association to enforce their ruling.
Please contact Board Chairman Mike Broadhurst at 924-1260 or Market Manager Sandra Dimond at 748-1109 and ask them to enforce their ruling--even better, ask them to stand up against genetically-engineered produce, which is bad for our environment and bad for consumers, and keep GE products out of our farmers' markets.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Approval of GE Sugar Beets Rescinded
Although the USDA had previously approved Monsanto's genetically engineered sugar beets, a Northern CA federal district judge issued a ruling that prohibits future planting and sale of "Roundup Ready" beets. The court found that the USDA had approved the beets without an Environmental Impact Statement. The beets are genetically engineered to resist Monstanto's Roundup herbicide. Other Roundup Ready crops have already let to increase herbicide use, herbicide-resistant weeds, and contamination of non-genetically engineered products. For more information, check out The Center for Food Safety.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Genetically Engineered Chili Peppers!
Looks like the next food on the GE agenda is New Mexico chili peppers, which inspired the award-winning film, “Genetic Chile,” which examines how corporate ownership of genetically modified organisms has changed traditional foods. I haven't seen the film yet, but this article gives some great information about what is happening with GMOs and why we should be concerned. Click here to read the article.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
New study on GM corn
A recent study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, showed that three GM corn varieties may have serious health effects. Monsanto corn NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 were fed to rats for 90 days--the longest in vivo test performed with mammals for GMOs. The analysis showed that the rats suffered effects on the kidney, liver, heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system (I think that is blood). See the complete study here.
The scary part is that those products are approved for consumption in the US . . . genetically modified foods need to be tested BEFORE they are approved by the FDA. And these products should be banned, until further studies are done.
The scary part is that those products are approved for consumption in the US . . . genetically modified foods need to be tested BEFORE they are approved by the FDA. And these products should be banned, until further studies are done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)