Yesterday’s hearing on H.R. 1599 (passed in July by the U.S. House of Representatives) pretty much resembled a puppet show: conducted by politicians, attended by GMO apologists, with Monsanto and Big Food pulling the strings.Seven out of eight of the witnesses allowed to testify at the hearing, held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, were nothing more than industry mouthpieces spouting corporate propaganda.Witnesses included a Vermont dairy farmer who falsely claimed that the genetically engineered crops she uses to feed her dairy herd have reduced the amount of pesticides poisoning Vermont’s soil and waterways. We know the reverse is true. Joanna Lidback, representing the Farm at Wheeler Mountain in Barton, Vt., also used the same old Cornell University study, funded by (and the intellectual property of) the biotech industry, to claim that labels on GMO foods will cost consumers $500 a year. Another claim we know to be false, based on numerous, independent studies.
And then there was the panel’s “consensus” that GMO foods are safe. Of course, no such consensus exists in the real world.So far, thanks to all of you who have called your Senators, met with your Senators and written to your Senators, a Senate version of H.R. 1599 has yet to be introduced.But that doesn’t mean a Senate version isn’t coming. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told PoliticoPro (a paywalled site) that she is “working with Republicans” on a Senate bill, because we “need a federal solution by the end of the year.” Sen. Stabenow said she doesn't support H.R. 1599 (the DARK-Deny Americans the Right to Know Act). But she isn't signed on to the S.511 (The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) either. So we're not sure what she has in mind. Will Stabenow's “federal solution” require GMO foods be labeled? Or will it just be another lukewarm, loophole-riddled, voluntary labeling scheme?Clearly, we still have our work cut out for us between now and December 31. And as always, we appreciate your support.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 GMO labeling legislative efforts)
Read OCA’s press release on the Senate hearing
Watch the Senate hearing
There’s big money in celebrity endorsements of brand-name products. So what’s an anti-endorsement worth?
Priceless, if you’re the parent (or grandparent) of an aspiring young athlete who prefers junk food over fresh veggies and green smoothies. Imagine this dialogue taking place in grocery store aisles across America:
Kid: “Can we get the Frosted Flakes?”
Mom: “If you want to grow up to be a star athlete, Tom Brady says you shouldn’t eat Frosted Flakes or drink Coca-Cola.”
Disclaimer: I’m not endorsing the National Football League here. And I believe people like Tom Brady are highly skilled, more-than-well-compensated athletes, not “heroes.” I also live in New England, where the media hangs on Brady’s every word. I seldom pay much attention because, I’ve never been too interested in what the players have to say (no offense).
Until last week.
Read the blog post
Star quarterback Tom Brady recently made headlines when he said Coke is “poison for kids” and that, thanks to the advertising world, “We believe that Frosted Flakes is a food.”
Brady attacked Coke and (Kellogg’s) Frosted Flakes during an interview in which he defended his friend, advisor and trainer, Alex Guerrero, against an unflattering Boston magazine report.
You may not be a sports fan in general, or a Tom Brady fan in particular, but you’ve got to love that when a celebrity athlete speaks out about a product, people listen.
Better yet, kids—at least those who dream of becoming star athletes themselves— listen. Intently.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Quarterback Tom Brady: Thank You for Taking on Junk Food!
Or text the word "brady" to 97779
Post a "Thank You" on Brady's Facebook page
Up until yesterday, it appeared that Monsanto had struck out in its attempt to find a Senate Democrat willing to co-sponsor H.R. 1599, the Gene Giant’s dream bill.
But that’s about to change.
Yesterday, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told the media she wants a “federal labeling solution” by year’s end. From the sound of things, she isn’t willing to rubber-stamp the DARK Act, at least as it’s written. But Sen. Stabenow very well could introduce a Senate bill that would preempt mandatory GMO labeling laws, at the state and federal level, by creating a federal voluntary labeling law.
We need to ramp up the pressure on President Obama to pledge to veto any federal law that would preempt states, or the FDA, from requiring labels on GMO foods. After all, in 2007, then-candidate Obama promised to support labeling of GMOs.
It’s time for President Obama to make good on that promise, by threatening right now to veto H.R. 1599, or any other federal bill that would preempt state or federal GMO labeling laws.
Last weekend we staged a symbolic delivery of our petition, with over 101,000 signatures, to President Obama. Soon, we will make it more official. If you haven’t signed yet, please do. And please share with your friends.
TAKE ACTION: Ask President Obama to Pledge to Veto the DARK Act!
We protect our kids from so many things. Moving traffic. Angry dogs. Strangers.
But there are still a lot of parents out there who don’t realize that their kids need protection from this silent threat: toxins in their food.
The Cornucopia Institute wants to change that. And make it easy for parents to understand why, and how, to protect their kids from toxic chemicals. The Institute's new report, “Protecting Children’s Health: Choosing Organic Food to Avoid GMOs and Agricultural Chemicals," cites scientific data from numerous peer-reviewed, published studies, all pointing to the importance of protecting children from pesticide exposure.
How best to protect kids? By feeding them organic foods.
In talking about the report, Dr. Victoria Maizes, executive director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, said:
"Children are uniquely sensitive to environmental chemicals, including pesticides, for several reasons. Their neurological system is still developing. Their immune system is not fully developed, limiting its ability to protect itself. Their detoxification systems have not fully matured, so they are less able to metabolize and excrete chemicals.”
Read the report
One bad decision—industrial agriculture—has affected countries all across the world. One good decision—regenerative agriculture—can turn everything around.
Precious Phiri, a holistic management educator and trainer, grew up in rural Zimbabwe. As a child, she wondered why they had no food when there was so much land around them. Why did they have to depend on food from other countries?
Speaking at the National Press Club on World Food Day, Phiri explains that it all comes down to the soil.
Watch the video
Most Common Nutrient DeficienciesU.S. Lawsuits Build against Monsanto over Alleged Roundup Cancer LinkFTC Declines to Probe Whether Ads for 'Diet' Products Are DeceptiveLeader of USDA Organic Program Subject of Ethics Investigation10 of the Most Common Ways World Hunger Is Misunderstood3 Companies Say 'No' to GMO Arctic Apples