On October 9, we held a joint press conference at the EU Parliament in Brussels to announce that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in four EU countries was contaminated with glyphosate.
The next day, Carey Gilliam, journalist and research director for US Right to Know, delivered expert testimony at an EU Parliament hearing on the “science” surrounding glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup weedkiller.
Gillam didn’t talk about whether or not glyphosate and Roundup are safe. Instead, her presentation (“Decades of Deception”) to parliament members, focused on Monsanto’s long-running secretive campaign to manipulate the scientific record, to sway public opinion and to influence regulatory assessments.
In this recent article, “Corporate-Spun Science Should Not Be Guiding Policy,” Gillam lays out all ways corporate-spun science is spinning out of control—and threatening public health. (News update: This week the EU voted to allow the use of Roundup for another five years—not the 15 years Monsanto wanted, but more than the three years some countries favored. France just announced that it will move forward with a plan to ban Roundup after three years).
Read ‘Corporate-Spun Science Should Not Be Guiding Policy’
Buy Gillam’s book: 'Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science'
Make a tax-deductible donation to help us continue our support for US Right to Know
Your local natural health food store could never get away with stocking its shelves with Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Toxins that cause cancer and birth defects don’t belong in “health” food stores.
So how do some of these stores get away with stocking Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, when our testing revealed that 10 of 11 flavors contain glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup?
This week, we called 290 of the best natural health food stores and co-ops nationwide to find out which ones sell Ben & Jerry’s.
We’re relieved to report that most—198—don’t. But unfortunately, 92 (31 percent) do. Here’s the list of natural health food stores and co-ops that sell glyphosate-contaminated Ben & Jerry’s. If your store is on this list please take this letter to the store manager and ask him or her to stop selling Ben & Jerry's. After your visit, fill out this form to let us know what happened.
Most of the stores that sell Ben & Jerry's display it right next to the organic brands they sell—a move that misleads consumers into thinking Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is organic, too.
And get this—by ounce, Ben & Jerry’s costs more than the leading organic brands!
Glyphosate contamination is just one reason not to buy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Concern about water pollution and animal welfare are two others.
Those pretty pictures on Ben & Jerry’s ice cream containers are intended to make you think the cows producing the cream for your ice cream are happily grazing on green pastures. But a visit to a real Ben & Jerry dairy in Franklin County, Vt., paints a very different picture—one of filthy waters and cows confined to a life on cement floors.
Franklin County is home to more than 36,000 cows that spend about five years pumping out milk for Ben & Jerry’s before they’re slaughtered for meat. Their waste flows into Lake Carmi. Once known as the Silver Lake recreation area, it had to be closed for three months this year because of toxic algal blooms caused by dairy farm runoff.
If the 92 natural health food stores that sell Ben & Jerry’s knew the real story, would they still carry Ben & Jerry’s weedkiller-contaminated ice cream?
Regeneration Vermont’s most recent report, “A Failure to Regulate, Big Dairy and Water Pollution in Vermont,” calls on Ben & Jerry’s to solve the crisis by transitioning to regenerative organic agriculture, beginning with bringing their dairies in line with their fake marketing.
We’ve already won significant concessions from Ben & Jerry’s. But we need to keep the pressure on!
Find out if the store near you sells Ben & Jerry’s
Download this letter to store managers
After your store visit, please fill out this questionnaire
Make a tax-deductible donation to support our ‘Ben & Jerry’s: Go Organic!’ campaign
Last month, up to 400 Midwest grocery stores started quietly testing packages of sliced “Arctic Apple” GMO apples.
Intrexon, the company marketing the apples, won’t tell us which stores are selling them.
The company also won’t label its apples “GMO” because, according to Intrexon’s CEO: “We didn’t want to put ‘GMO’ and a skull and crossbones on the package.”
The Arctic Apple uses a risky, untested technology that many scientists worry may have unintended, negative consequences—for our health, and the environment.
The only way to show companies like Intrexon that we don’t want their GMO apples is to not buy them—and convince grocery stores to not sell them. But first, we have to find them. We need your help!
TAKE ACTION: Join the GMO apple scavenger hunt, November 7 – December 4, to locate the stores selling GMO apples. Sign up here and we’ll send you instructions, talking points, etc.
Download instructions for the GMO apple scavenger hunt
Monsanto’s feeling a bit put out. And what happens when the Biotech Bully is unhappy?
This time, Monsanto is suing the state of California for requiring products that contain glyphosate (the key active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller) to carry a “may cause cancer” warning.
California added glyphosate to its list of cancer-causing chemicals in July, based on the March 2015 conclusion by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” The state will require products that contain glyphosate to carry warnings by July 2018.
We’re not surprised that Monsanto’s going to court over this. The chemical/biotech company has a long history of bullying farmers, scientists, the media—even the victims of its Roundup poison who are struggling with cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
But we do have to give Monsanto extra chutzpah points for this twisted quote from Scott Partridge, VP of global strategy:
“Such warnings would equate to compelled false speech, directly violate the First Amendment, and generate unwarranted public concern and confusion.”
Sorry, Mr. Monsanto Spokesman. Consumers aren't "confused." We're irate that Monsanto has been getting away with murder for decades. And insulted that you would imply that the truth about Monsanto's products is too confusing for us to grasp.
As for the First Amendment nonsense . . . seriously?
Chutzpah aside, Monsanto is a scourge on our land, a disastrous wrong turn in the history of agriculture.
With your help, we will end Monsanto's madness.
Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)
Donate to Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our GMO labeling legislative efforts)
Monsanto didn’t have a lot to be grateful for over the Thanksgiving weekend, at least not in Mexico.
Mexico’s agriculture sanitation authority, SENASICA, revoked the Biotech giant’s permit to commercialize genetically modified soy in seven Mexican states.
To make matters worse, a Mexican court upheld a ban on the planting of GMO corn in Mexico.
The GMO soy permit was revoked because transgenic Monsanto soy was detected in areas where cultivation was not authorized. The revocation applies to the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosí, Quintana Roo, Veracruz and Yucatán.
The ruling to keep the GMO corn ban in place is the latest chapter of a more than four-year old battle to protect Mexico’s hundreds of native corn varieties.
The case pits powerful agroindustrial corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, Pioneer, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences, Mexican governmental entities such as the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) against the Colectividad del Maíz, a broad farmers, indigenous and human right groups, scientists, activists, lawyers, artists and civil society organizations.
The latest ruling kicks the decision up to the Supreme Court. OCA’s Mexico City-based counterpart, Asociación de Consumidores Orgánicos, has been an active member of the Colectividad from the beginning, and will continue to fight for a permanent ban on GMO corn in Mexico, in order to protect integrity and diversity of Mexico’s corn and its connection with the country’s entire culture.
Read our press release
Make a tax-deductible donation to keep Monsanto GMO corn out of Mexico
Everyone (well almost everyone) agrees that replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy technologies is an important strategy for fighting global warming.
But there’s another, critical climate strategy. And farmers, not technology, are at the center of that strategy.
Farmers have the best solution to global warming, says Barbara Hachipuka Banda, founder of the Natural Agriculture Development Program Zambia in partnership with Shumei International.
Regeneration International’s Oliver Gardiner interviewed Banda at the recent COP23 Climate Summit in Bonn, Germany. Banda’s organization is training 6,000 women farmers across 30 communities in Zambia, a country where 80 percent of the population relies on farming for its food.
"Our main focus is to get farmers to acknowledge the fact that you can actually grow food minus needing to borrow imports, minus needing to poison our soil with fertilizers and chemicals."
In a press release on how regenerative solutions gained momentum at COP23, Banda said:
“The only real solution to climate change is through collaboration and scalability to build a movement for change. We are stronger together when we work in harmony with nature.”
Watch Regeneration International's exclusive interview with Barbara Hachipuka Banda
Watch and then share the video on Facebook
Subscribe to the Regeneration International newsletter
Make a tax-deductible donation to Regeneration International, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit partially funded by OCA
An old study is shining new light on the truth about what sugar does to your health —and the lengths to which the sugar industry has gone to keep consumers in the dark for decades.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, uncovered and recently released historical documents revealing that Big Sugar covered up research linking a diet high in sugar to high blood cholesterol levels and cancer in rats.
According a report in the journal PLOS Biology, in the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation (known today as the Sugar Association), funded animal research that studied the effects of sugar consumption on cardiovascular health—and then suppressed the research.
Stanton A. Glantz, one of the study’s co-authors, said:
“This is continuing to build the case that the sugar industry has a long history of manipulating science.”
Read the PLOS Biology study
Read the New York Times report
Could Coconut Oil Help Reduce Antibiotics?Natural vs. Artificial Herd Immunity: What Have Failed Vaccination Programs Taught Us? Monsanto Fails to Shake City of San Diego in Water Pollution LawsuitGMO Labeling Update: Some Senators Calling for On-Package Text to Disclose the Presence of GM IngredientsA Perilous Time, a Promising Movement
Stop Pretending the Estate Tax Has Anything to Do With Family Farmers
Forget the Holiday Specials: Here's How to Shop Consciously, Year-Round