Frances Moore Lappé -- Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."

What?

Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"

Read more.. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/06-12

Dave Gutknecht -- Farmers Fight Monsanto's Threats and Intimidation

A major lawsuit against Monsanto was denied in at the district court and has been appealed. On July 5, 2012, seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., asking the appellate court to reverse a lower court's decision from February dismissing their protective legal action against agricultural giant Monsanto's patents on genetically engineered seed.

The plaintiffs brought the pre-emptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York (Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto) and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto's most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act pre-emptively to protect themselves from Monsanto's abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement.

Lead plaintiff in the suit (and the main source for this report) is the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (www.osgata.org), a not-for-profit agricultural organization made up of organic farmers, seed growers, seed businesses and supporters. OSGATA is committed to developing and protecting organic seed and its growers in order to ensure the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed – seed that is free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture.

Dangerous Drift

Seed and pollen can drift great distances, in some cases as far as 10-15 miles, increasing the likelihood of contamination of organic crops with genetics from Monsanto's laboratories. The latter seeds and crops are referred to as "transgenic," and have had DNA of foreign organisms inserted into their DNA through human engineered processes. The suit plaintiffs use and sell non-transgenic seed, more commonly referred to as heirloom, organic, or conventional seed.

Read more.. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/445-farm-and-food-policy/13042-focus-farmers-fight-monsantos-threats-and-intimidation?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Paula Alvarado -- A landmark ruling against agrochemicals in Argentina receives mixed reactions

Argentine activist Sofia Gatica did not win the Goldman Environmental Prize this year for a small reason: for more than a decade, she has been leading a joint complaint with neighbors from her town Ituzaingo, in Cordoba province, against producers who were spraying agrochemicals too close to the community, making people sick. (The public attorney claimed 169 people from the 5,000 neighbors got cancer from pollution from 2002 until 2010.)

Argentina being the third largest exporter of soybeans and a consumer of over 50 million gallons of glyphosate and endosulfan, her efforts were not small. In fact, she became the voice for a problem nobody wants to talk about.

Since the government depends on soy exports to collect taxes and keep the economy alive, the subject is not one eagerly discussed politically. There was a call by president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to create a commission to investigate agrochemicals in 2009, but its final recommendation, as IPS notes, was, "Because there is not enough data in Argentina on the effects of glyphosate on human health, it is important to promote further research."

The media is not crazy about it either, and you can see why by flipping the pages of the Country supplements from the nation's major newspapers, filled with ads from Monsanto et al. In 2009, a local scientist presented a study with evidence of the impact of glyphosate on amphibious embryos and received death threats plus an aggressive discredit campaign.

But this afternoon, Gatica and other environmental movements pushing the issue were preparing to receive a pat in the back. A court in Cordoba Province was going to give its final ruling on whether two farmers and an aviator were guilty of causing environmental damage and potential health hazards to the people of Ituzaingo.

Five hours after the initial time of the announcement, the verdict was in: one farmer was absolved due to lack of evidence, but the other and the aviator were found guilty and sentenced to three years of jail. Well, actually, conditional jail. Which means they can very much get out of doing any time, although they will be obliged to do social work.

Read more.. http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/a-landmark-ruling-against-agrochemicals-in-argentina-receives-mixed-reactions.html

[Call to Action] URGENT! Tell your Senators to support GMO labeling – Americans shouldn’t have wait to find out what’s in their food!

Take action today to stop agribusiness lobbyists from giving away billions in federal subsidies to the agribusiness lobby.

Urgent Calls needed – Senate votes on GMO labeling amendment today!

Yesterday was a better day in the U.S. Senate for family farmers, eaters and the environment, with several key amendments protecting vital conservation programs passing in floor votes. (Please see below for the updates).

We want to thank Food Democracy Now! members and our allies for achieving some significant victories in the Farm Bill this week. As you know, we are up against some of the most powerful corporations on the planet, but this shows if we all work together we can help create significant change. In the past week Food Democracy Now! members have made more than 15,000 phones calls to the Senate, but we have one more hurdle this week.

Another urgent vote will take place in the Senate in the next few hours and your Senator could cast the deciding vote on the Sanders amendment #2310 that clarifies state’s existing rights to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. This vote will require 60 affirmative votes to pass so we need A LOT of calls!

Click here to tell your Senator it’s time to label GMOs! Americans shouldn’t have to wait, nearly 50 other countries around the globe already require GMO labeling!

In the past year, more than a dozen states have introduced legislation to allow their citizens the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced, but massive corporate lobbying by Monsanto and thebiotech industry has brought these bill to a halt in key states like Connecticut and Vermont.

Americans can no longer allow the threats of corporations to deny us our simple Right to Know what’s in our food, nor live under the hypocritical and pseudo-scientific theory of “substantial equivalence”, which was established by the FDA in 1992 and continues this politically motivated charade of not allowing the labeling of food that has been genetically engineered in laboratories.

Tell your Senators, “I support GMO labeling and you should too!“

Last week Senator Sanders introduced amendment #2310 (the Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food Act) in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor.

Senator Sanders’ words were a welcome relief of reasonable and common sense logic on a topic that has long since been plagued by bureaucratic double-speak.

“All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids, and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods. I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child,” Sanders said on the Senate floor.

Senator Sanders went on to state basic facts about food labeling policies in the U.S. and abroad that should make all Americans think long and hard as to why GMOs are not labeled in America.

“In the United States, food labels already must list more than 3,000 ingredients ranging from gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans-fats or MSG, but not genetically altered ingredients. Around the world, by contrast, 49 countries require labels on foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients,” said Sanders.

Who knows what the biotech industry is afraid of? But that’s not our concern. As an American, we each have a basic inalienable right to know what’s in our food, whether it was raised on an organic farm or genetically engineered in a laboratory.

Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to deny us our fundamental rights and neither should your Senators!

Tell your Senators, “I support GMO labeling – and you should too!“

Senate Food and Farm Bill Floor Vote Roundup

We want to thank everyone who made urgent phones calls in the past week and let you know that your persistence and hard work paid off!

Here’s a updated list of the amendments that Food Democracy Now! and our allies for a healthy, sustainable food system supported during the Senate vote on the 2012 Food and Farm Bill.

• VICTORY – Chambliss Amendment No. 2438 Links the receipt of federally subsidized crop insurance to basic conservation requirements.
• VICTORY – Durbin-Coburn Amendment No. 2439 Limits the amount of insurance subsidies for the wealthiest farmers.
• LOSS – Gillibrand Amendment Restores funding for vital nutrition programs and limits excessive payments to crop insurance companies.
• VICTORY – Merkley Amendment Creates a fair crop insurance program for organic farmers.
• VICTORY – Brown Amendment Provides mandatory funding for Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development.
• LOSS – Tester Crop Diversity Amendment to maintain access to the best varieties of seeds for farmers and future generations.

The sad news is that there were important amendments that we lost in this fight, but Food Democracy Now! proved once again, that if we work together, we can accomplish victories.

Together we can make GMO labeling a reality!

Thanks for participating in food democracy,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! Team

GMOs and Glyphosate Linked to Infertility, Botulism and SIDS

Introduction and Background Information

I have heard much confusion and doubt about a man I admire much… Dr. Huber. When I first met Dr. Huber over four years ago, listened to his presentation, then reviewed his work in my hotel room, I began to realize what this meant for mankind. I wept, I cried some more, realizing how much evil was behind this; my tears are still on my notes of his work, I did not sleep, realizing how much work needed to be done. I have seen countless friends and family affected by the evil stemming from this crony capitalism network. Huber’s work is sound, his character strong, and he needs help spreading truth and clearing confusion. I am now asking for help from you, any of my friends, to equip yourselves with knowledge, as knowledge is power. This may bore many of you; too difficult for others, but it is the #2 thing to understand in your life other than God. If we can stop this, Dr. Huber is deserving of any earthly honor we can give him. I urge anyone who comprehends any of what I write to share this with as many as you can. It is a matter of utmost importance right now to ALL life on this planet. 

Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Read More:

http://farmwars.info/?p=8543

Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins - Meet the Corporate Front Groups Fighting to Make Sure You Can't Know What's in Your Food

What do a former mouthpiece for tobacco and big oil, a corporate-interest PR flack, and the regional director of a Monsanto-funded tort reform group have in common?

They’re all part of the anti-labeling PR team that will soon unleash a massive advertising and PR campaign in California, designed to scare voters into rejecting the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

In November, California voters will vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a law to require mandatory labeling of all GMO ingredients in processed foods, and ban the routine industry practice of mislabeling foods containing GMO ingredients as ‘natural.’

Polls show that nearly 90% of the state’s voters plan to vote ‘yes.’  But when November rolls around, will voter support still be strong? Not if the biotech, agribusiness, and food manufacturers industries can help it.

It’s estimated that the opposition will spend $60 million - $100 million to convince voters that GMOs are perfectly safe. They’ll try to scare voters into believing that labeling will make food more expensive, that it will spark hundreds of lawsuits against small farmers and small businesses, and that it will contribute to world hunger.  None of this is true. On the contrary, studies suggest just the opposite.

Here’s what is true: The opposition has lined up some heavy-hitters and industry-funded front groups -- masquerading as “grassroots” organizations -- to help spin their anti-labeling propaganda machine.

Read More:

http://www.alternet.org/story/155675/meet_the_corporate_front_groups_fighting_to_make_sure_you_can%27t_know_what%27s_in_your_food

Tom Philpott - How California Could Force the Rest of the U.S. to Label GMO Foods

In November, California voters will decide on a ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing ingredients from genetically modified crops. The initiative made it to the ballot after almost 1 million Californians signed a petition in favor of it—nearly double the 504,760 signatures needed under the state's proposition rules. The campaign that organized the push to get the measure on the ballot focused on possible health effects of GMO foods.

This news will not likely be applauded by my friends over at Crop life America, the main trade group of the GM seed/agrichemical industry. The big GMO crops—corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton—are processed into sweeteners, fats, and additives used widely by the food industry. Everything from high fructose corn syrup-sweetened Coke to soybean oil-containing Hellman’s would have to bear a label reading something like "Contains GMO ingredients."

That would send a shockwave through the food industry—one that could ultimately be felt on the industrial-scale U.S. farms that have been devoting their land to GMO crops for years, and the companies that profit from selling them patented seeds and matching herbicides. The reason isn't just that California represents an imposing chunk of the U.S. food market. It's also that a food-labeling law that starts in California is unlikely to stay in California.

Read More:

http://www.nationofchange.org/how-california-could-force-rest-us-label-gmo-foods-1338536857

Ethan A. Huff - 'Label It Yourself' campaign urges the People to begin labeling GMOs now

 Rather than continue to put up with endless stonewalling and excuse-making by federal and state governments that refuse to require mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms, a massive, grassroots effort is currently underway to spur individuals across the country to begin labeling GMOs right now.

The Label It Yourself (LIY) campaign, which describes itself as a "decentralized, autonomous grassroots campaign born out of our broken food system," is cultivating a nationwide network of concerned individuals that are willing and able to take it to the grocery stores in pursuit of full transparency in food labeling.

The campaign is urging the "99 percent," which of course represents the common man, to download and print labels that say, "Warning, May Contain GMOs," and affix them on various processed and non-organic food products that likely contain GMOs. The 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch stickers, which feature a skull head and two ears of corn, draw attention to the presence of GMOs, and direct consumers to the LIY website.

You can access these GMO warning stickers here: http://labelityourself.org/liy/

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036051_GMOs_label_it_yourself_activism.html

Joanna Blythman - Vandals! No, not protesters trashing crops but the GM lobby still trying to force increasingly discredited Frankenstein Food down our throats

Genetic modification was supposed to be the ground-breaking science of the future. Its magic wand would feed the world and make toxic pesticides redundant.

But, in reality, it has dismally failed to live up to the expectations of its cheerleaders.

The high crop yields the GM lobbyists promised us just haven’t happened. Farmers are having to use more pesticide, not less, on their GM crops.

Thanks to GM, vigorous new superweeds stalk the fields in countries such as the U.S., where controversial GM crops have been forced onto the market — against the wishes of citizens — at the behest of profit-driven corporations.

What’s more, we now have evidence that GM crops can cross-pollinate with non-GM crops, contaminating land for miles around.

Read More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151380/GM-lobby-trying-force-increasingly-discredited-Frankenstein-Food-throats.html

Ethan A. Huff - Exposed: Monsanto planted GM alfalfa before USDA approved it, federal agency knew all along

A little more than a year ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) made the disastrous decision to deregulate Monsanto's Roundup-Ready alfalfa, even though the agency's sham of an environmental impact report failed to prove that GM alfalfa is at all safe or necessary. It has now come to light that Monsanto released GM alfalfa into the wild years before it was initially deregulated in 2005 -- and the USDA was apparently fully aware of this, but did nothing about it.

Reporting for Activist Post, Cassandra Anderson and Anthony Gucciardi explain that a letter to the USDA dated April 5, 2007, from Cal/West Seeds, a California-based seed company, shows that Monsanto's GM alfalfa had been in cultivation years before the first deregulation of the crop in 2005. That letter reveals that Monsanto's GM traits were already turning up in conventional alfalfa seed in 2005, which means GM traits were in use at least two years before that in 2003.

"We first discovered the unintended presence of the Roundup Ready gene in our conventional alfalfa seed in 2005," says the letter. "It was identified in one of our foundation seed production lots grown in California. We tested the foundation seed lot prior to shipping it to a producer who intended to plant it for organic seed production.

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036023_Monsanto_GM_alfalfa_USDA.html