FOOD Documentary A Revealing Look at the Sourcing of Our Modern Food Supply

By Dr Mercola

"Food" is a 30-minute documentary that investigates how demand for more and cheaper food has dramatically altered the entire food chain. Today, food production revolves around efficiency—the ability to produce more for less. The ramifications of this mindset are wide-ranging and far-reaching...

As KPBS’ Joanne Faryon reports, “the food chain no longer looks like it used to.” Fish no longer eat other fish, and cattle eat very little grass, which is their natural food source. Instead, cattle eat corn, chickens eat corn and fish, and fish eat cows and poultry... Similarly, fresh produce like fruits and vegetables are primarily sold to foreign markets.

California oranges, for example, are exported to far flung places like Japan, while Americans eat oranges from Australia—presumably because Americans prefer the deeper orange color of Australian oranges, and the fact that they’re easier to peel. As a result, the carbon footprint of most foods sold in your local grocery store is massive, having made its way thousands of miles from where it was grown.

The Beef About American Cattle Farming

While food prices appear to be on the rise, we actually spend less on our food today than we did a generation ago, thanks to modern food production practices. The ultimate price, however, may be greater than anyone ever expected.

For starters, modern agricultural practices are taking a heavy toll on soil and environmental health, and the way we raise animal foods, especially in the US, results in animal products that are far inferior compared to their ancestral past.

The practice of raising animals in confined feeding operations (CAFOs) is also having a major detrimental impact on our environment and is a primary source of environmental pollution and rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Last year, 63 million tons of beef was produced worldwide.1 As stated in the film, while making up only five percent of the world’s population, Americans consume nearly 20 percent of all the beef produced globally.

But just how is all this beef produced? The film summarizes how the typical cow makes its way from birth to slaughter in the US. A generation or so ago, cattle would be mostly pasture-raised and sold for slaughter around the age of two or three. The meat would then be taken to the local market.

Today, California cows start out being raised on pasture for about six months before being sold, typically changing hands twice, before ending up in a CAFO feedlot. Feedlots, which were introduced after World War II, are large pens that house tens of thousands of cattle—some can hold herds up to 100,000 animals.

Here, they’re fattened up on a corn-based diet before being slaughtered about four or five months later. All in all, today’s beef is grown in about half the time compared to a generation ago.

Besides corn, virtually all beef sold in American grocery stores comes from cattle injected with hormones. Corn fattens the cattle, but consumers don’t like all that gristly fat, so hormones are used to make the animal produce more lean muscle tissue. This improves profits, as it increases the animals’ growth by about 10 percent.

Ironically, as Faryon points out, it’s the corn that makes the cattle fat, so if we didn’t feed them corn, we wouldn’t have to give them hormones to minimize fat production. Another question well worth pondering is this: with all this hormone-laced beef, along with the American corn-based processed food diet (think high fructose corn syrup), is it any surprise Americans are growing fatter, faster, as well?

Farmed Fish—Feedlots of the Sea...

Industrial fish farming, or aquaculture, is the fastest growing form of food production in the world.2 About half of the world’s seafood now comes from fish farms, including in the US, and this is expected to increase. At first glance, farmed fish may seem like a good idea to help protect wild seafood populations from overfishing while meeting the nutritional needs of an ever-expanding global population.

In reality, however, the industry is plagued with many of the same problems surrounding land-based CAFOs, including pollution, disease and inferior nutritional quality. It’s getting so bad that fish farms can easily be described as “CAFOs of the sea.” Here we see an even greater distortion of the food chain. Wild fish eat other fish, but farmed fish can be fed a concoction of ingredients they’d NEVER encounter otherwise, such as soy protein and beef or chicken byproducts, including cattle blood, bone, and chicken feathers.

The reason for this is because, as explained by Jeffrey Graham in the film, it takes about five pounds of fish to produce one pound of growth in salmon. This clearly negates the original rationale for fish farming, which is to prevent the depletion of natural fish stocks. The solution is to replace the fish meal in the diet with soy protein and other protein products...The question is, is this really a healthy solution?

Europe has banned processing byproducts from cattle due to the potential risk of spreading mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE), a neurodegenerative disease that can affect humans eating contaminated beef. While there have been no reports of humans contracting mad cow from eating farmed fish, the theoretical possibility is there. Besides that, it seems clear that a fish that eats meat byproducts opposed to its natural diet of other fish is not going to have the same nutritional makeup as wild fish.

Then there’s the increased risk of fish diseases spreading to wild fish. The close quarters where farmed fish are raised (combined with their unnatural diets) means disease can spread quickly, and because farmed fish are often raised in pens in the ocean, pathogens can spread like wildfire and contaminate any wild fish swimming past. I wrote about this last summer in the article “Salmon Confidential.”

The Unsavory Truth About Factory Farmed Chicken

Large commercial chicken facilities typically house tens of thousands of hens and can even go up to hundreds of thousands of hens who, yet again, are fed a diet consisting primarily of corn. Processing byproducts such as chicken feathers can also be added to the feed. Antibiotics are routinely used in most facilities, but hormones are not permitted in American-raised chickens. When it comes to labels such as “free-range” and “natural,” it’s buyer beware...

The definitions of "free-range" are such that the commercial egg industry can run industrial farm egg laying facilities and still call them "free-range" eggs, despite the fact that the birds' foraging conditions are far from what you'd call natural. True free-range eggs are from hens that roam freely outdoors on a pasture where they can forage for their natural diet, which includes seeds, green plants, insects, and worms.

When you’re housing tens of thousands of chickens, you clearly cannot allow them all to freely roam and scavenge for food outdoors. At best, CAFO hens may be let out into a barren outdoor lot for mere minutes a day. Your best source for pastured chicken (and fresh eggs) is a local farmer that allows his hens to forage freely outdoors. If you live in an urban area, visiting a local farmer’s market is typically the quickest route to finding high-quality chicken and eggs.

Can We Grow a Fair and Sustainable Food System?

Many believe the answer to world hunger is further expansion of large-scale agriculture; others place their bets on genetically engineered (GE) crops. But are factory farms and large-scale GE farming really going to solve the problem? Evidence suggests the answer is a resounding NO. In fact, our modern agricultural system is the very heart of the problem...

Modern monoculture has severely depleted soils of essential nutrients and microorganisms, and poor soil quality is a core problem facing farmers across the globe. Monoculture (or monocropping) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. (Corn, soybeans, wheat, and to some degree rice, are the most common crops grown with monocropping techniques. As discussed above, corn and soy are two of the primary ingredients in feed given to livestock, be they chickens, cattle or fish.)

The Earth's soil is now depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also led to the extinction of 75 percent of the world's crop varieties over the last century. Additionally, modern agriculture is extremely energy dependent. It is estimated that every consumer in the Western world eats the equivalent of 66 barrels of oil per year. That's how much oil is needed to produce the food on your plate.

Do You Really Want to Eat Factory Farmed Animals?

If you were to grow food for you own family, my guess is that you would do so with extreme care, using the best seeds, the healthiest animals, and the least amount of chemical additives. Yet, when most people buy their food, they have no idea where it actually comes from, and conversely the people who grow this food have no idea who ends up eating it. When people are able to grow food for the faceless masses, I think it somehow justifies these terrible practices that have become commonplace: pumping animals full of hormones and drugs, dousing vegetables with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and introducing genetically modified seeds into the environment.

If you had to see the animal you were about to eat before it makes its way to the supermarket or your dinner table, would you choose one that had lived out its days in a filthy, crowded cage? One that had been mutilated and tormented, then pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, while being fed pesticide-laden grains it was not designed to eat?

Or would you choose one that had lived a nurtured and well cared for life, free to roam on pasture, see the sunlight and breathe in fresh air? One that was fed its natural diet and nothing more? The choice is obvious, which is exactly why agri-business has done such a masterful job of concealing what really goes on from the vast majority of Americans. All you see is a cellophane-wrapped package, maybe a picture of a barn with happy cows and chickens standing near. In many cases, if you could really see how that animal was raised, you would likely shield your children’s eyes, then turn away in disgust.

Factory farms allow us to be removed from taking personal responsibility for raising our own food. There is no one to be held accountable for raising garbage food or treating animals inhumanely because the system has taken on a life of its own. By far, the vast majority of food at your local supermarket comes from these polluting, inhumane farm conglomerations. So if you want to stop supporting them, you first need to find a new place to shop.

Become Part of a Growing Movement

Fortunately, it’s relatively easy to find a humane and reliable source for your food -- sources that are growing food with the health of the environment and the animals as the driving forces. At LocalHarvest.org, for instance, you can enter your zip code and find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area, all with the click of a button. For an excellent list of sustainable agricultural groups in your area, please also see Promoting Sustainable Agriculture -- this page is filled with resources for high-quality produce and meats in your area.

The more we all make it a point to only buy food from a source we know and trust, the faster factory farming will become a shameful practice of the past. Farmers and lovers of real food show us that change IS possible. But your involvement is required. Here are a few suggestions for how you can take affirmative action:

Buy local products whenever possible. Otherwise, buy organic and fair-trade products.

Shop at your local farmers market, join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), or buy from local grocers and co-ops committed to selling local foods.

Support restaurants and food vendors that buy locally produced food.

Avoid genetically engineered (GMO) foods. Buying certified organic ensures your food is non-GM.

Cook, can, ferment, dry, and freeze. Return to the basics of cooking, and pass these skills on to your children.

Grow your own garden, or volunteer at a community garden. Teach your children how to garden and where their food comes from.

Volunteer and/or financially support an organization committed to promoting a sustainable food system.

Get involved in your community. Influence what your child eats by engaging the school board. Effect city policies by learning about zoning and attending city council meetings. Learn about the federal policies that affect your food choice, and let your congressperson know what you think.

Spread the word! Share this article with your friends, family, and everyone else you know.

Los Angeles May Become Largest GMO FREE Area In US

AFP Photo / Eitan Abramovich

Los Angeles is considering a ban on the cultivation, sale and distribution of genetically modified organisms, which would make the city the largest GMO-free zone in the US.

Los Angeles City Councilmen Paul Koretz and Mitch O’Farrell introduced Friday a motion to curb growth and proliferation of GMO seeds and plants within the city.

The councilmen said the proposal aims to protect local gardens and city-grown food from future contamination from GMO seeds. The motion would not impact the sale of food containing GMO ingredients, however.

GMO seeds are mostly used only by large-scale farming operations, of which none exists in Los Angeles city.

"The pending ordinance would be symbolic more than anything else, but we do feel it's an important step to have the second-largest city in the nation declare itself as against genetically modified seeds," said head of Learning Garden and Seed Library of LA David King, who assisted in creating the motion.

King told The Huffington Post that if GMO seeds begin to be marketed to smaller farmers, the ban would be in place to protect home-grown food.

O’Farrell said suspicions that powerful new pesticides - incorporated into plant DNA via genetic engineering - have devastated worldwide honeybee populations by 40 to 50 percent in 2012 is the “canary in the coal mine” for GMOs. California’s almond crop, which supplies 80 percent of US almonds, has fallen on tough times given almonds rely so much on bees.

“A growing number of problems are being traced to GMOs," Koretz said in a statement. He cited examples like "the evolution of 'superbug' insects which are growing immune to the pesticides engineered within GMO crops" and "'seed drift' (for example the recent finding of GMO-pollinated wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field)."

Some smaller US localities have banned the cultivation of GMOs, but LA would be by far the biggest US city to do so.

Genetic engineering on plants, for example, occurs when a gene from another plant species, bacterium or virus is inserted into the organism's DNA.

An international group of over 90 scientists, academics and physicians released a statement early this week saying there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for humans, as proponents like Monsanto attest, and that any GMO cultivation should take internationally-approved precautions.

“The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue,” the statement said.

“Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

A public effort to require all GMO foods and seeds to be labeled as such throughout the entire state of California failed a year ago. Opponents of Proposition 37 - like Monsanto and Kraft - helped donate around $46 million to the cause against labeling. Supporters of labeling raised just over $9 million in that defeat.

Voters in Washington State will consider a labeling requirement next month. Opponents of Initiative 522 - led by questionable fundraising tactics by industry trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association - have pumped $17 million into the effort to defeat labeling. Supporters have raised over $5 million.

A lawsuit filed by the state against the GMA claimed that the group violated campaign disclosure laws, and forced it to reveal donors to its “Defense of Brands Strategic Account.”

Out of the 34 companies who doled out over $7.2 million into the initiative the top three were PepsiCo, which contributed $1.6 million, and Nestle USA, Inc. and The Coca-Cola Co., which spent over $1 million each.

11 Year Old Exposes GMO Lies Video

Monsanto Buys Food Prize

As Lily Tomlin has noted, "No matter how cynical you get, it's almost impossible to keep up."
For example, imagine if a prestigious group announced that this year's "World Environmental Prize" is being awarded to BP, for its unique contribution to the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. No way, you say? Too absurd?

Right, but try this one: Imagine that an Iowa group announces that its "World Food Prize" will go to Monsanto for pushing its patented, pricey, genetically-tampered Frankenseeds on impoverished lands as an "answer" to global hunger. This would be so morally perverse that the "cyn" in cynical would be spelled s.i.n.

Yet, it has actually happened.

Rather than encouraging sustainable farming and self-sufficiency in impoverished communities as a way to alleviate poverty and malnutrition around the world, this year's World Food Prize has been "won" by a profiteering, biotech, seed-and-chemical monopolist that's the freakish opposite of sustainability.

 Monsanto, which owns 90 percent of the world's genetically modified seeds, is globally infamous for bullying family farmers, bribing and corrupting governments, stiffing independent scientific inquiries into its hokum, running false ads and fraudulent PR campaigns, and going all out to keep consumers from knowing that the crops produced by its seeds contain alien, bioengineered DNA and have not been tested for long-term health and environmental problems.

Why would this avaricious outfit get any sort of award, much less one that can give it a false legitimacy as a corporate "savior" for the world's poor? Perhaps because Monsanto is a major funder of the World Food Prize. Indeed, the foundation that hands out the award is headquartered in downtown Des Moines in a historic building that recently got a spiffy remodeling, thanks to a $5 million donation from — you guessed it — Monsanto. The corporate honoree has also been a steady donor to the food prize foundation, giving some $400,000 to its promotion of industrial agribusiness in the last dozen years.

It was my privilege to go to Des Moines last week for Monsanto's World Food Prize extravaganza. Well, I didn't exactly get into the ceremony where the halo was being fitted on this predatory proliferator of proprietary GMO seeds. In fact, I wasn't even allowed to enter the Monsanto-financed edifice, wasn't invited to sip sauvignon blanc at the Rockefeller reception on the patio, and didn't get to mingle with the corporate, political, and foundation backscratchers at the official hullabaloo.

Rather, I was down the street at the graceful First United Methodist Church, where more than 500 of us scruffy "outsiders" gathered in protest of the Monsanto absurdity. There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the myriad of abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.

One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could've used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the farm bill. Instead, Monsanto didn't lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country. It doesn't care at all about feeding the world, he said with disgust, it cares about profits, period.

Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referring to in May, when he declared: "The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal." How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this food prize for itself in order to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world's poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its altered seed.

The World Food Prize Foundation has grandly dubbed its award "The Nobel Prize for Agriculture." But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-Culture. It is the agri-Business face of the cult of money that Francis warned about — and it has turned this award into the "Ignoble Prize."

Copyright Creators.com

Factory Farms :Taxpayers Pay, Politicians Take, Agribusiness Profits

Organic Index 10.9.13
Organic Consumers Association, October 9, 2013

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

The agribusiness giants would have us believe that our inherently unsustainable and morally reprehensible factory farming system is the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. But the facts prove otherwise. Factory farming is all about maximizing profits for a handful of the world’s largest corporations.

Agribusiness spent  $751 million over the past 5 years on lobbying congress and another $480.5 million in direct campaign contributions over the past two decades. Since 1995, taxpayers have provided $292.5 billion in direct agricultural subsidies, another $96 billion in crop insurance subsidies, and over $100 billion in subsidies to promote the growth of genetically engineered corn and soy.

Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That’s a 70-percent loss.  And recent research from the University of Minnesota shows that reallocating croplands away from fuels and animal feed could boost food available for people by 70 percent without clearing more land. 

How did we end up with this cruel, unsustainable, unhealthy, environmentally destructive factory farm model? The numbers say it all.

The Bigger the Farm, the Larger the Taxpayer Subsidy

$292.5 billion: Total amount of taxpayer subsidies given to farms from 1995-2012.

Only $39 billion: Total amount in conservation payments paid to farms between 1995 and 2012.

10: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that collected 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1995-2012.

62: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that did not collect any subsidy payments.

$32,043: Average annual subsidies received by the largest 10 percednt of farms between 1995 and 2012.

$604: Average annual subsidy received by the smallest 80 percent of farms between 1995 and 2012.

Insuring Factory Farms at Taxpayer Expense

$15.8 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers in 2012 for providing crop insurance - an overwhelming majority of which went to the largest factory farms.

$96.4 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers for subsidizing the Crop Insurance Program from 1995-2012.

$90 billion: Cost of crop insurance to U.S. taxpayers over the next 10 years.

75: Percentage of 2012 crop insurance payouts shouldered by taxpayers.

$10.3 billion: Amount since 2001 that insurance companies have enjoyed in underwriting gains – while taxpayers have lost $276 million.

$1 million: Average amount the 26 largest factory farms collected apiece in crop insurance premium support in 2011.

$227,000: The amount the top 1 percent of policyholders received in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

$5,000: The amount the bottom 80 percent of policyholders collected in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

More than 10,000: Number of individual farming operations that received federal crop insurance premium subsidies ranging from $100,000 to more than $1 million apiece in 2011.

10: Percentage of farm businesses that received 54 percent of all insurance subsidies in 2011.

GMO animal feed subsidized by U.S. taxpayers

$84.4 billion: Amount in corn subsidies (88 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

$27.8 billion: Amount in soy subsidies (94 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

Legalized bribery: How American monopolies are built

$751 million: Amount in lobbying expenditures by the agribusiness lobby from 2008-2013.

$480.5 million: Amount the agribusiness sector has contributed to federal candidates during the past two decades, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

$43 million: Amount spent by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (world’s largest biotech trade association)  on lobbying from  2008 to 2013.

$33 million: Approximate amount spent by Monsanto (who has patents on 95% of the genetically modified seed market) on lobbying since 2008. 

$7.2 million: Amount just 14 members of Congress and their spouses (net worth of up to $124.5 million)—each of them Republican—have received in farm subsidies since 1995. These Congress members all voted to continue farm subsidies from which they personally benefit, while allowing authorization for nutrition programs for low income individuals and families, including food stamps, to expire this year.

Sources:
2013 Farm Subsidy Database, Environmental Working Group
Pork Barrel Politics, By Congressman George Miller, July 2013
Agribusiness, Open Secrets
Monsanto Co, Open Secrets
Biotechnology Industry Association, Open Secrets
Winning the Debate against Factory Farming

Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.

‘Groundbreaking’ Work? Or Monsanto Madness?

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Science is trying to build a better supermarket tomato.

Tomato plants grow from genetically modified tomato leaves. 

 David Manning for The New York Times

 

Harry J. Klee and his team are identifying genes crucial to tomato flavor. Once crucial genes are identified, Dr. Klee’s team uses traditional techniques of cross-pollination to produce a plant with those genes.

At a laboratory here at the University of Florida’s Institute for Plant Innovation, researchers chop tomatoes from nearby greenhouses and plop them into glass tubes to extract flavor compounds — the essence of tomato, so to speak. These flavor compounds are identified and quantified by machine. People taste and rate the hybrid tomatoes grown in the university’s fields. 

“I’m 98 percent confident we can make a tomato that tastes substantially better,” said Harry J. Klee, a professor of horticultural sciences. He hopes that the fruits of his labor will be available to commercial growers within four or five years and in supermarkets a couple of years after that. He thinks he can make seeds for better tomatoes available to home gardeners even sooner, within a year or two. 

The insipid-tomato problem is well known both to salad lovers and scientists. For example, a gene mutation that tomato breeders love because it turns the fruit a luscious red also happens to make it blander. Refrigeration, transportation and other factors also take their toll. Over the decades, the average tomato has become not only less tasty but less nutritious. 

Enter Dr. Klee, who helped found the Institute for Plant Innovation a decade ago and has been in a quest for a more flavorful and nutritious mass-market tomato ever since.

It is easy to find a better tasting and more nutritious tomato. 

Go to a farmer’s market or grow one in the backyard. It is also easy to breed a plant that produces something tastier than a supermarket tomato — cross a sweet heirloom with the supermarket variety. In the greenhouse, Dr. Klee pulls one such hybrid tomato off a vine, and it does taste sweeter.

 But a hybrid also loses some of the qualities highly valued by commercial growers — it is not as fecund, not as resistant to disease, not as easily grown, not as pretty. 

As growers are paid by the pound, a better-tasting but less productive tomato holds little economic appeal, and thus was the supermarket tomato doomed to blandness. 

Dr. Klee’s goal is to tweak the tomato DNA — through traditional breeding, not genetic engineering — to add desired flavors while not compromising the traits needed for it to thrive commercially. “I figure that with approximately five key genes we could very significantly improve flavor,” he said. He said three genes that control the production of key flavor compounds have already been located. The next step is to identify versions of the genes that lead the tomato plant to produce more of them. 

The chemistry of tomato flavor has three primary components: sugars, acids and what are known as volatile chemicals — the flavor compounds that waft into the air carrying the fruit’s aroma. There are more than 400 volatiles in a tomato, and Dr. Klee and his collaborators set out to first determine which ones are the most important in making a tasty tomato. 

This involved grinding up a lot of tomatoes, looking at what was in them, and asking a lot of people to taste them (unpulverized), gathering comments like “a bland firm watermelon,” “soft and sloppy,” and “Sweet! Finally a sample with some sweetness.” 

From there, Dr. Klee and his collaborators, who include Linda Bartoshuk, director of human research at the university’s Center for Smell and Taste, used statistics to correlate people’s preferences with the presence, or absence, of particular flavor compounds, to devise a chemical recipe for the ideal tomato. 

The supermarket tomato — even when grown with care and picked ripe — did not excel. “The best it will do is middle-of-the-pack,” Dr. Klee said. 

Cherry Roma tomatoes were at the top of the charts, followed by heirloom varieties like Matina, Ailsa Craig and Bloody Butcher. Other heirlooms like Marmande and Oaxacan Pink ranked at the bottom, below the supermarket tomatoes, though perhaps these particular types just do not grow well in Florida. 

The taste analysis produced several surprises. Some compounds, abundant in many tomato varieties and thus thought to be major contributors to flavor, turned out to be irrelevant, while others, in scant quantities, had major influences. With the new knowledge, “you can’t help but get a better tomato,” Dr. Bartoshuk said. 

The most important attribute was sweetness. The sweeter the tomato, the higher the rating. The biggest surprise, though, was that it was not just sugar that made a tomato sweet. Some of the flavor compounds enhanced the perception of sweetness. 

That is the key to Dr. Klee’s plans. Tomato breeders have already tried to maximize sugar, but the plants are bred to produce a lot of big tomatoes all at once, and then do not have energy and sunlight through photosynthesis to make enough sugar to go around. 

The sweetness-enhancing compounds, however, are present in much smaller quantities, so getting a plant to produce more of those is a much more achievable goal, Dr. Klee said. (The compounds also offer promise for sweetening other foods without adding the calories of sugar.)

“His work is really groundbreaking,” said James Giovannoni, a professor of plant biology at Cornell who studies the ripening of fruit and was one of the leaders in the sequencing of the tomato genome published last year. 

He said Dr. Klee has been deciphering the molecular machineries in tomatoes that produce the flavor compounds, and that is not an easy task. “One, there is a lot of them,” Dr. Giovannoni said, “and two, a lot of them are really not understood, how some of these produce these compounds hasn’t been known.” 

Modern genetic engineering has provided tools to study that, and tomatoes are one of the most common plants that plant geneticists study, much in the same way that animal geneticists focus on mice, and now researchers can knock out particular compounds and see if they played a key role in flavor or not. 

There has been one genetically engineered tomato in the supermarket. In the 1980s, plant geneticists at the University of California, Davis, just as frustrated by bland tasting tomatoes, also tried to make a better tomato. That led to a biotechnology company, Calgene, in 1994, developing the Flavr Savr tomato, the first genetically engineered food of any kind in the supermarket, its DNA tweaked to inhibit a protein that turns a tomato mushy over time. While it sold well, Calgene foundered in the logistics of industrial agriculture and was bought by Monsanto, which discontinued selling the seeds. 

The Florida team is not repeating the Flavr Savr game plan.

Although Dr. Klee experiments with genetically engineered tomatoes to test and confirm findings, he said that none of the ones eventually destined for supermarkets will be — partly to avoid potential consumer backlash and partly because his university cannot afford the estimated $15 million that would be needed to obtain regulatory approval to sell a genetically engineered tomato. 

Instead, the tomato would be created through traditional breeding techniques, but using genetic tests to determine which of the plants possess the desired genes. 

The quest for year-round produce at the supermarket has also led to tomatoes being grown in less-than-ideal places — like Florida, where the soil is too sandy and there are plenty of pests — when the traditional tomato-growing areas farther north are too chilly. 

Dr. Klee does not expect the improved tomato to taste as good as the best heirlooms. Supermarket tomatoes would still be grown in large quantities, picked green and shipped long distances before being gassed with ethylene to ripen. In addition, the tomatoes are often mishandled en route. Refrigeration, Dr. Klee notes, destroys the flavor compounds in even the best tomato. “I might be able to get 75 percent” of the best tomato in one that can be grown in greater quantities, he said. 

Some traditional breeders are skeptical that Dr. Klee can do what he thinks he can as quickly as he predicts. “I don’t think the taste of tomatoes is going to be fixed by molecular biologists,” said David Francis, a professor at The Ohio State University who has bred and released several tomato varieties, “because flavor is a lot more complicated than manipulating one or two genes.” 

After working with tomatoes for so long, Dr. Klee admits he does not eat many of them, but he does want the public to be able to buy appetizing ones. Part of his quest is to get people to eat less junk food. If he can improve the taste of tomatoes, he said, it could be an important way to coax Americans to eat healthier foods. 

Tomatoes aren’t the only focus of the Institute for Plant Innovation. Researchers are working on a more fragrant rose, a project that involves the genetic engineering feat of inserting — yes — a tomato gene in a rose plant. They are also trying to grow tastier strawberries and blueberries. One new blueberry variety could be described as positively crispy, almost apple-like in its texture. 

Consumers who tasted these blueberries liked their firmness, and the quality is also a boon to growers, because the fruit lasts longer. 

“It’s a blueprint,” Dr. Klee said of his tomato quest, “for a much bigger program of bringing back flavor.” 

Why Dr. Bronner's is on a Soapbox for GMO Labeling~ The Fighting Soap Company!

On November 5, citizens in Washington State will vote on whether to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs. Win or lose, The Washington Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is driving the national push on GMO labeling in states around the country as well as at the federal level—just as the narrowly defeated Prop 37 in California did last year.

Contrary to the misleading rhetoric and propaganda espoused by chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow that portrays GMO labeling on food packaging as costly and unnecessary, the truth is we have the right to know important information about our food, and such disclosures on packaging cost virtually nothing. We have the right to know whether juice is from concentrate or not; whether ingredients are artificial or not; whether fish is farmed or wild-caught. We also have the right to know if food is genetically engineered, in order to make informed decisions about what we eat and feed our families.

Chemical companies genetically engineer DNA from bacteria into food crops, causing the crops to either produce or tolerate the pesticides they sell. Overuse of pesticide is creating resistant superweeds and superbugs, which leads to more pesticides being sprayed. Now, chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow are engineering resistance in food crops to increasingly toxic weed killers like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the main ingredient in Agent Orange (which, coincidentally, both Monsanto and Dow also manufactured).

The bottom line is that genetic engineering of food crops is a pesticide industry boondoggle. Just six chemical companies have bought and now control the seed industry in this country, and their interest is to increase—not reduce—agchemical inputs. Rather than help farmers move toward more sustainable and less chemical intensive agriculture, genetic engineering has resulted in huge increases in pesticide use and residues of these chemicals in our food. Pesticide Action Network is a great resource on the link between GMOs and pesticides, and the next generation weed killer tolerant crops in the regulatory pipeline. Even the Wall Street Journal has reported on the recent spike in insecticide use.

Just this past week came news about Argentina's pesticide use and reported cancer clusters. In question: the huge increase in pesticide use—and consequential health impacts—since the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops in Argentina. It's important to understand that no currently commercialized GMO traits, or any in the regulatory pipeline, have the effect of boosting yield to "feed the world." Rather, by far the most important in terms of acreage and revenue are traits designed to increase weed killer tolerance and the short-term profits of the chemical industry.

Additionally, of the five major crops that have been genetically engineered so far (corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets), corn and soy are by far the most prevalent, as the number one and two crops farmed in the U.S. However, these crops are mostly not grown for human consumption.

Big Ag lobbies for and profits from unsustainable ethanol fuel mandates that result in 43 percent of total corn acreage going into inefficient ethanol production from GMO corn kernels (not cellulosic waste straw). Most of the remaining corn production, and much of the U.S. GMO soy crop, goes into animal feed. Industrial agchemical farming of GMO crops for fuel and animal feed only exacerbates world hunger. Study after study shows that agroecological organic methods of agriculture in the developing world can feed the world's population twice over while significantly boosting rural development (see the UN Report, "Agroecology and the Right to Food").

Industrial agchemical agriculture relies on finite fossil resources, is a huge contributor to global climate change, and is inevitably doomed. But there are billions to be made in the meantime polluting the world and killing our soil. Since agroecological methods are knowledge-intensive and are not patentable or profitable for Big Ag, chemical corporations spend millions to ensure national policy reinforces their chemical intensive and genetically patentable—but ultimately unsustainable—business model.

Last year, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps joined a diverse, grassroots coalition of consumer groups, health advocates, and environmentalists in California in support of Proposition 37. Pesticide and junk food manufacturers spent more than $44 million to narrowly defeat the initiative with deceptive advertising. Despite its defeat, Proposition 37 sparked a national movement for the right to know whether foods contain GMOs, with states around the country considering or enacting legislation to do so. Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, which, as stipulated in the legislation, will go into effect when at least five more New England states also pass such laws. Washington State is the next battleground with major agricultural sectors concerned that unlabeled genetically engineered wheat, apples, and salmon will compromise consumer trust in these foods.

To help spread the word about the importance of GMO labeling, we have transformed our iconic Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps label for the castile liquid soaps into an advocacy label, to garner support for the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMOs in Washington, and to raise awareness for the importance of transparency in food labeling. For a limited time, wherever you buy Dr. Bronner's quart castile soaps, you'll find this GMO-Info label on the quart size bottles, and we hope you'll take a moment in the shower to read it.

As the "fighting soap company," we seek to push for a number of social issues that we feel are good. All our soaps are certified under the same USDA National Organic Program that certifies food, and all major ingredients (coconut, olive, palm, hemp and mint oils) are also certified Fair Trade. We cap executive compensation at five to one per our lowest paid position, and dedicate profits not needed for the business to charitable and activist causes.

We have prioritized labeling of genetically modified foods alongside supporting at-risk youth programs, re-commercializing industrial hemp, animal advocacy, fairness in trade, and other worthwhile efforts. My brother and I wrote this new GMO info label in the tradition of our grandfather, Dr. Emanuel Bronner, and his "All-One" philosophy, and on behalf of our commitment to healthy and sustainable agriculture, corporate accountability, and the consumers' right to know—all of which embody the social and ecological principles that inform the philosophy printed on the original castile liquid soap labels.

Whether you live in Washington, or elsewhere in the U.S., this is a food fight that affects all of us. Learn more about the GMO issue, support the Yes on 522 campaign in Washington, and join the growing movement to demand mandatory GMO labeling in your state and at the federal level.

Look Who's Spending Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling in Washington

The opposition: WA I-522 Vote No Funders

Hover over a slice of the pie graph for details:

*The Grocery Manufacturers Association includes these Companies: Safeway (O Organics), Starbucks, Target, Con-Agra (Alexia, Hunt's Organic and Natural Brands, Lightlife, Orville Redenbacher's Organic), Kellogg's (Kashi, Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Morningstar Farms), Unilever (Ben & Jerry's), Kraft (Boca Burgers), General Mills (Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen), Hershey's (Dagoba,) Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla), Dean Foods (Horizon Organic, Silk, White Wave), Pepsico (Naked Juice, Tostito's Organic, Tropicana Organic), Smucker's (R.W. Knudsen)


NOTE:   

The funny thing is, voting yes could work out to Monsanto's et al benefit.  They'll jump on board, saying "we're proud that this food contains GE ingredients, which feed the world" or some other garbage.

Cigarette warning labels didn't stop smoking, while I support GMO labels, informed consumers already know.  Uninformed consumers prefer ignorance.  Maybe some uninformed will take the time to read labels, although that is insufficient knowledge. 

 

Many "organic" trash foods contain GMO, such as sugar (sugar beets) Canola oil etc....they just see the word organic and don't pursue the ingredients any further.  Plus "natural" already allows HFCS etc....

We really live in a corporate ruled society where deception is critical for bottom lines. 

People already have more power than the voting both, more power than any legislation.  Just vote with each $$$ that they spend.

Monsanto Protection Act NOT Renewed

 

 

A protester holds up a poster during a March Against Monsanto -- and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs -- in New York in May. Reuters

The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” has been removed from a Senate spending bill to the delight of those opposed to the controversial provision.

The provision would have stayed on the books under a continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives last week, but U.S. Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., led a successful charge to have the language removed from the Senate version of the bill.

“One week ago, I asked, ‘Who pulls more weight on Capitol Hill? The agrichemical companies like Dow and Monsanto, or the food movement?'” Elizabeth Kucinich, policy director for the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of Senator Barbara Mikulski we now know the answer: the food movement.”

Mikulski introduced an amendment to have the language of the bill changed to remove the “Monsanto Protection Act” removed. The amendment was approved earlier this week, and the provision will expire at the end of this month.
A massive groundswell of public opposition to the “Monsanto Protection Act” began in March, when news of its existence hit the mainstream.

The provision, officially Section 735 of the HR 933 continuing resolution passed in March, came under fire because food safety advocates warn that it strips federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and propagation of genetically modified seeds and crops if safety tests reveal concerns about their safety.

The legislation was written by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., in collaboration with Monsanto Company -- which has become the public face of the virulent debate over GMOs.

The furor over the “Monsanto Protection Act” and GMOs reached fever pitch in May, when hundreds of thousands of people participated in a global protest known as the March Against Monsanto. The company was even named 2013’s “most evil corporation” in a June poll, which was likely in large part a response to the controversy over the provision.

Mikulski’s amendment was not the first one aimed at repealing the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced a similar amendment near the height of the controversy in May, but it was not adopted.

Interestingly, the Center for Food Safety blamed Mikulski for allowing the
 provision to make it into continuing resolution via a “hidden backroom deal” back in March.
“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer,
environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,”

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, wrote in a statement at the time. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

Outrage at the existence of the “Monsanto Protection Act” was intense even before the bill containing it was passed. In the days leading up to its being signed by President Barack Obama, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition asking him to veto the bill, and Food Democracy Now protesters organized by the Food Democracy Now advocacy group demonstrated against it in front of the White House.

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of the Food Democracy Now advocacy group, lauded the Senate's move to remove the controversial provision.

“This is a major victory for the food movement and all those who care about openness and transparency in their government,” Murphy wrote in a statement. “And a sign that our voices can make the difference when we are effectively organized.”

Monsanto did not respond immediately to a request seeking comment on the new developments surrounding the “Monsanto Protection Act,” but Kelly J. Clauss, a spokeswoman for the company, sent a statement on the provision to IBTimes back in March.

“A broad bipartisan group of legislators in both the House and Senate have supported the provision dating back to June 2012, and it passed with broad bipartisan support,” Clauss explained at the time.

 “As we understand it, the point of the Farmer Assurance Provision is to strike a careful balance allowing farmers to continue to plant and cultivate their crops subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, while USDA conducts any necessary further environmental reviews.”

This article will be updated if and when Monsanto responds to the request for comment.
UPDATE: In lieu of commenting, a Monsanto spokesman referred International Business Times to the company's blog post on the provision expiring. You can read that blog post here.

Vote YES I522 To Force Genetically Modified/Engineered Products To Be Labeled

I-522 UPDATE $17.1 Million Worth of Lies

How many lies will $17.1 million buy? Enough to sink another GMO labeling initiative?

Opponents of I-522, Washington State’s initiative to require mandatory labeling of GMOs, hope so. They’re banking on their ability to broadcast enough lies, often enough, to enough voters, to defeat I-522.

And if they do, the GMO labeling movement might not recover.

In 15 short days, Washington State voters will begin mailing in their ballots. In 33 days – on November 5 - it will all be over.

That’s all the time we have left to raise enough money to reach every voter in Washington State.

Our opponents are desperate. And filthy rich. A dangerous combination.

Their lies are familiar to us. But maybe not so to millions of voters who are hearing about GMOs for the first time.

Who are “they”? The NO on I-522 campaign is funded by Monsanto. Dow. Dupont. Bayer. BASF. And the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA has kicked in $7.2 million on behalf of food companies like Pepsi, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Kraft and others – cowardly companies that are funneling their donations through the GMA to avoid the kind of bad publicity that came raining down on them last year, when they publicly donated to defeat a GMO labeling initiative in California.

Who are “we”? We are moms who want better food choices for our families. We are students. And grandparents. We are republicans, democrats, independents. We are blue-collar and white-collar workers. We are old. We are young.

We are fed up with letting Monsanto, the giant GMA lobbying group, the FDA and the USDA poison our food. And trample our rights.

We are the GMO labeling movement. And it’s up to us to win this key battle.

Still not sure why GMO is destroying the environment and your health? Check out this page or thousands of others that reveal how many countries around the world have banned it completely and the GM, or GE companies DEPEND on the US as their only suckers who still buy their garbage. Products afraid of labeling their ingredients? Why do they have to deceive?

Please share the word with all Washington Voters!

What Is Soy Lecithin Why Is it in Everything You Buy?

Real Lecithin Or Sludge?

Lecithin was named by Maurice Gobley, a French scientist, in 1805.  It's name comes from the Greek word"lekithos"  which means egg yolk, and the egg yolk was the primary source of lecithin.  It was a Healthy, natural food.

Lecithin was valued for the fat water soluble compounds called phospholipids which are essential to our health and play a direct and vital role in every aspect of our health, including metabolism, memory, cognitive function, cardiovascular and liver function.

Phospholipids are essential fat and water soluble molecules found in our cellular structure.  They are a combination of lipids  (fats)  and the mineral phosphorous.  It's impossible for any of our cells to function optimally without phospholipids.  They are that critical.

Soy Lecithin begins as a vile, toxic,    Foul Smelling Sludge.  After the war of 1812 American Whiskey distilleries began production.  Alcohol production resulted in large amounts of wasted grain.

They turned their expensive distillery waste disposal problem into profit.  You can read more about the story behind  16 million tons of distillers grains and fuel ethanol waste   being fed to our dairy & beef cattle.  Got Milk?

Around 1908 German companies were suffering similar waste disposal problems from their soybean oil refining industries.

What could they do with the ever increasing mountains of that foul smelling sludge?  Ever inventive and not to be out done, the European companies patented the process of creating soybean lecithin.

Soy lecithin is created from the gummy industrial hexane extracted soy oil waste product. It's full of chemical solvents, and pesticides, is bleached to a more appealing color and is marketed as Healthy Soy Lecithin to unsuspecting consumers worldwide.

Their shrewd hired gun scientists brewed up thousands of uses by 1939.  You are seeing these products everyday in your supermarket, particularly in the Natural Food Section, where you can pay a premium price for toxins!

We have the European initiative & genius to thank for Soy Lecithin being in our food supply for over 100 years and others to thank for it being unavoidable in processed foods and in things that you would never imagine, including Organic.

You see, we have the USDA Organic Certification to thank for that.  Currently the USDA allows around 275 synthetic chemicals in the production, manufacturing, processing or end   "organic"  product.

If there is no organic equivalent for toxins such as Soy Lecithin, then it can magically be called Organic.  So if there is no organic Mercury, Mercury and anything else can also be included in USDA Organic products.  In fact, the duplicious USDA is also pushing Organic Standards to include GMO!

Not exactly natural is it?  And no labeling requirement showing those chemicals, so there's no way of knowing which chemicals you're buying!  By accident or design?

Phospholipid Level Comparisons

Egg Yolks  have 30% phospholipid levels, free range have substantially more than industrial eggs

goat & sheep milk  have phospholipids levels of 30-50% depending on the species, feed and season

Cow milk  around 20%+, if they're fed slop those numbers are drastially reduced

Buffalo milk  30%+ but it's not readily available and they run pretty fast

Human Breast Milk  32%

Camel milk  around 35% and not readily available in US markets

Soybean oil  ranges from 1.48 to 3.08%, ridiculously low isn't it?  Yet they brag!

Other vegetable oils   have around .05%, pathetically low and not considered  healthy oils

So, how did Soy measure up in Phospholipid Levels when comparing itself to essential nutrients of real foods? 

Soy Lecithin Today

Almost all phospholipid supplements are soy based, some are bovine.  Read the labels or wouldn't  Raw Goat Milk be a much healthier choice?  I drink it daily!

Soy lecithin is insidious, it's used as an emulsifier to keep water & fats from separating in processed food like substances such as margarine and other hydrogenated products.  It's in peanut butter, candies, chocolate, dressings, teas, cereals, ice cream, artificial coffee creamers, infant formulas, mayonnaise, and just about anything you can think of.

"Contains Soy"  is found on many products because even trace amounts of soy protein can trigger severe allergic reactions and minute traces remain in all soy products, even fermented.

Personally, my dollars don't vote for anything that has Soy in it.  I've stopped buying many different organic products because someone convinced them to slip soy lecithin into their product.

Wny not take the time to send them a later telling them why you won't be buying, and why you'll do your best to spread the word?  Just because today your favorite product doesn't have it, doesn't mean that tomorrow or next week or next year that they wont slip it in.  I find it in Organic Teas!  Now, why does an emulsifier need to be in tea?

Soy's Environmental Destruction

If you're using soy for sustainability or environmental reasons, you have made the wrong choice. There is nothing more environmentally destructive than Soybean plantations.  The world wide figures for soybean plantings keep rising, are spoken of in the millions of acres and are truly unfathomable.

The US, Brazil and Argentina count for 80% of the world wide soybean production.  Brazil has taken the lead over the US since about 2004.  80% of the global soybean crop is used for animal feed, remember it's the meal left over after the oil has been extracted.  South America ships 60% of it's GMO soy to Europe for animals that Europeans will eat, including all of the pesticides in the soy.

US Soy Production

Soybeans  78.1 million acres, with 12.5 million just for Soy Bio Diesel.  95% of all soy is GMO.
Corn  88.8 million acres of which about 90% is GMO
wheat  53.83 million acres, The USDA is considering GMO wheat

Can you begin to imagine the multiple, toxic pesticides associated with the GMO and what those millions of acres could be planted in instead?

Here are but a few examples of what 1 acre produces:  

corn  18 gallons of oil~ GMO
cottonseed  35 gallons oil ~ GMO
soybean   48 gallons oil~ GMO
Hemp seed  1,800 gallons + 6,000 lbs high protein flour & no pesticides required for hemp
Palm  635 gallons
Music garlic  13,400 + lbs

South American Soy

While the Amazon is the world's largest rain forest it is also the home to about 25 million people including many indigenous tribes.  The Amazon region is as large as the 48 US states, touches eight South American countries and represents about 40% of the total land mass in South America.

Ranchers and land squatters are driving Amazonian deforestation to satisfy that insatiable demand for soy.  Soy plantations push traditional farmers further into the forest, destroying more rain forests and transitional forests.

Most of the soy is exported to feed meat and dairy animals, who are not biologically equipped to eat grains.  Soy is also included in many  dog & cat foods,  causing further health disorders, as these animals are also not equipped to eat grains.

There are more than 105,000 miles of illegal roads in the Amazon.  There is the BR-163, known as the Soy Highway, running 1,100 miles deep into the Amazon.  Soy plantations blanket the landscape, wildlife destroyed, forests destroyed, entire indigenous populations displaced.  Just fleets of John Deere combines, illegal roads, pesticides & GMO.

The indigenous Amazonian Indians have been protesting for years, unheard by the world, and massacred by their governments or Ranchers.  Activists face intimidation at best or death because of Agi Industry.

GMO Seeds: Fueling the Health of Corporations

• By Organic Consumers Association
  August 21, 2013
  
  

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.

Numbers don’t lie.  Over the past 20 years, America’s seeds, animal feed and biofuels have been infiltrated like a virus by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary winners in this game of genetic roulette have been the profit margins of the world’s largest biotech, pesticide and agrochemical companies.
More than 40 percent of all U.S. cropland is devoted to GMO crops. Yet even though nearly 80 percent of processed foods sold in the U.S. now contain GMOs, the majority of genetically engineered (GE) crops aren’t grown to feed humans. The bulk of today’s GE soybeans and corn in particular, are used to feed animals and generate biofuels.

Americans consume 193 pounds of GMOs annually. And the animals that provide us with nearly all the meat, poultry and dairy we eat are force fed GE crops their  bodies were never designed to process.

Who’s getting healthy on GMOs? Not the American people, whose health has declined since GMOs were introduced into our food. Not American farmers, whose numbers have dropped precipitously since agribusiness has taken over our farmland. And not the billions of animals being pumped full of antibiotics to stave off illnesses associated with confinement and GMO feed.

No, the only ones getting healthy are the four largest pesticide, agrochemical and biotech companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta – whose sales have jumped from $60.1 billion in 2004 to $119.3 billion in 2012.

America’s Growing GMO Seed Dependence
404 million: Approximate number of acres of U.S. cropland.

172 million: Number of acres of GMO crops in the U.S., nearly double its nearest competitor (Brazil at 90 million).

94: Percentage of U.S. soy crops that currently contain GMOs.

54: Percentage of U.S. soybeans in 2000 that contained GMOs, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996

90: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contain GMOs.

61: Percentage of U.S. cotton crops that contained GMOs in 2000, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996.

88:  Percentage of U.S. corn crops that contain GMOs.

25: Percentage of U.S. corn containing GMOs in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996.

90: Percentage of U.S. canola crops that contain GMOs.

95: Percentage of U.S. sugar beet crops that contain GMOs.

57: Percentage of American sugar production that comes from sugar beets.

GMOs: Fueling our Factory Farms and Automobiles
98: Percentage of U.S. GMO soy used for animal feed and fuel production (~70% to feed and ~25% to biofuels).

71: Percentage of U.S. GMO corn that is used for animal feed (40%) and fuel production (31%).

Approximately 67: Percentage of world’s GMO canola seed oil used in animal feed.

12.2 million: Number of hectares of GMO crops (nearly 10 percent of the global total) used in the U.S. for biofuels in 2008.

The Winners: Biotech, Agrochemical and Pesticide Industries
$13.5 billion: Monsanto’s net sales in 2012 (largest biotech seed company in the world), up from $5.5 billion in 2004.

$34.8 billion: Dupont’s net sales in 2012, up from $8 billion.

$56.8 billion: Dow Chemical’s net sales in 2012, up from $40.1 billion.

$14.2 billion: Syngenta’s net sales in 2012, up from $7.3 billion in 2004.

Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.

Do You Really Want GMO Apples In Restaurants and Schools?

Do It for the Apple

There’s nothing more natural than an apple, right?

The symbol of good health and all that’s right with the world.

But did you know that the FDA is reviewing a genetically modified version of the perfect fruit?

 It’s true.

 A Canadian company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits wants to “improve” the apple with a genetic engineering process that would prevent an apple from turning brown after you slice it or bite into it.

 Why? Mostly so kids will eat more (genetically engineered) apples.

Our best bet for keeping the GMO apple from reaching school cafeterias and fast-food restaurants? Pass a GMO labeling law in Washington State, where 60 percent of this country’s apples are grown.

Because chances are, if the state where the most apples are grown mandates that GMO apples must be labeled, the U.S. Apple Association, which opposes the GMO apple, will have more clout when it comes to convincing the FDA that consumers don’t want biotech engineers messing with their favorite fruit.

Just one of the many reasons we all have a stake in I-522, Washington State’s initiative to require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

 Please help us win this critical battle in November. For the movement. For your health.

 For the apple. Thank you!

Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)

Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Washington, Vermont and other states)

13 Lies GMO Labeling Opponents are Recycling in Washington State

• By Zack Kaldveer
  Organic Consumers Association, August 21, 2013
  
  

It’s déjà vu all over again. Last year a coalition of out-of-state, multinational biotech, pesticide and junk food corporations spent nearly $46 million to narrowly defeat Proposition 37, California's GMO Labeling Initiative.

Now, the same who’s who of the world’s most notorious global corporate bad actors has descended on Washington State. Why? To try to stop Washington State voters from passing I-522, a citizens’ initiative that, if passed, will require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all food products sold in Washington State.

Like bad robots, they’re spitting out the same old, tired lies, designed to scare voters into voting against their own best interests.

Here are the lies. And the facts. Please read, print, email, roll up and stuff into a bottle you launch into the sea . . . whatever it takes to spread the word that while $46 million may buy a lot of lies, it doesn’t change the facts.

Lie: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Truth: Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European Union labeled GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been "no resulting increase in grocery costs."

Trader Joe’s, Clif Bar & Co. and Washington’s own PCC Natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

Lie: I-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.

Truth: I-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. I-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law:

•     Restaurants – Restaurants and bake sales are not required to list the ingredients in their products. Requiring labeling for GMOs would have required tracking all the ingredients in restaurant meals, and since no other laws require that, it didn't make sense for this one to.
•     Meat, cheese, dairy and eggs from animals - These will be labeled if they come from genetically engineered animals. However, they are exempt if the animals ate genetically engineered feed but are not themselves genetically engineered. This exemption is common all around the world. It didn't make sense for Washington’s law to be stricter than international standards.
•     Alcohol – Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, alcohol couldn’t be included.

Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. 

 

According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label "organic" means that a product is GMO-free. 

 

Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

Lie: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion agricultural industry. 

Truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods.  Connecticut, Maine and Alaska have passed labeling laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. Besides, 64 countries already require labeling, so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports. In fact, many Washington farmers support labeling because they believe that growing GMO crops destroys healthy soil, and because they sell crops to overseas markets that either require labels on GMO crops, or have banned them completely. These countries are increasingly concerned about U.S. non-GMO crops, such as wheat, that could be potentially contaminated by cross-pollination with GMO crops.

Lie: I-522 encourages shakedown lawsuits by giving trial lawyers an unprecedented new right to sue farmers, food producers and store owners over the wording on food labels.

Truth: I-522 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. Consumers can't file a class action suit against food producers without first giving the food producer a warning and the opportunity to comply with the law. As long as the defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted. Once the class action option is off the table, a consumer could sue only to get a court order to require labeling, and only for the few dollars that consumer paid to buy the product. Where’s the incentive?

If the state brings a court action to enforce the new law, any penalties recovered by the state go only to the state - not the plaintiff or the lawyer. Food companies are required by law to label for ingredients, calories, etc., and there have been few violations. Why wouldn’t companies accurately label genetically engineered foods, too?

For the real story about abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers, check out what Monsanto is up to: suing farmers across the country for growing their own seeds.

Lie: Labeling GMOs creates a bureaucratic nightmare for grocers and retailers and requires the state government to monitor labels on thousands of food products in thousands of stores, costing taxpayers millions.

Truth: Under I-522, the person responsible for labeling processed foods is the person who puts the label on: the manufacturer. Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.

I-522 requires no costly testing for GE ingredients. No burdensome government oversight is necessary. The system is inherently designed to protect small grocers and retailers while providing consumers with the right to know what’s in their food without increasing grocery costs.

Lie: GE foods pose no health safety risks.

Truth: GMOs have never been proven safe. The FDA requires no pre-market health safety studies, and the only long term peer-reviewed animal study conducted involving GMO corn sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. In addition, a growing body of peer-reviewed animal studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility. Clearly, more independent, long term studies are warranted. Until GMOs are proven unequivocally safe, they should be labeled so consumers can avoid them if they choose.

Lie: GE foods are as, or more, nutritious than organic foods.

Truth: Organic foods, especially raw or non-processed, contain higher levels of beta carotene, vitamins C, D and E, health-promoting polyphenols, cancer-fighting antioxidants, flavonoids that help ward off heart disease, essential fatty acids, and essential minerals. On average, organic is 25 percent more nutritious in terms of vitamins and minerals than products derived from industrial agriculture. Levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle are between 50 percent and 80 percent higher than normal milk. Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce have between 20 percent and 40 percent more nutrients than non-organic foods.

A report released from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada found GMO Corn has 14 parts-per-million (ppm) of Calcium while non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm, or 437 times more. According to the report, non-GMO corn also has 56 times more magnesium and seven times more manganese than GMO corn.

Lie: The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that GE foods are safe.

Truth: The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods, a standard the U.S. fails to meet. A National Academy of Sciences report states that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” Numerous public health and medical groups support the labeling of GE foods, including the American Public Health Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Breast Cancer Action, Allergy Kids Foundation, Autism One, and many others.

Lie: We need GMOs to feed the world.

Truth: Studies have proven that GE crops do not lead to greater crop yields. In fact, just the opposite is true. A 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found GMO crops fail to produce higher yields. And a recently released, peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops.

Lie: The creation of GE seeds is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.

Truth: Cross breeding is the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are created in a laboratory using high-tech and sophisticated techniques. One of these techniques involves gene-splicing which is used to cross a virus or a bacteria with a plant. These untested, unnatural creations are the antithesis to what our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do: cross-pollinate different varieties of the same plant to help naturally bring forth desirable characteristics.

Lie: GE crops reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: GE crops have dramatically increased the use of herbicides and pesticides. According to a new study by Food and Water Watch, the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” with the overall pesticide use rising by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

The report follows another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook last year that found that overall pesticide use increased by 404 million pounds, or about 7%, from 1996 and 2011. The use of GE crops are now driving up the volume of toxic herbicides needed each year by about 25 percent.

Lie: GE crops aren’t harmful to the environment.

Truth: Besides polluting the environment with herbicides and pesticides, GE crops are leading to biodiversity loss and the emergence of “super bugs” and  “super weeds" that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, requiring the need for even more dangerous and toxic herbicides.

GE crops, and the toxic pesticides they are designed to withstand, are endangering numerous critical species, including the honey bee, frogs, birds, fish and the Monarch Butterfly.

And don’t forget our air and water. The island of Molokai in Hawaii has had its air and water quality destroyed by Monsanto’s almost-2000-acre test facility. The same is true worldwide, with many areas around GMO farms reporting horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.

 

NOTE:  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, consumers have far more power than any legislation.  Just stop buying and swallowing their garbage and even giant corporations fall if they don't provide what consumers will buy.  

Americans simply don't care enough yet to pay attention to their health, if enough voted against GMO false foods, they wouldn't fill our supermarket shelves.