Industrialized farming is responsible for a large share of today’s air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, rising carbon emissions and the depletion, erosion and poisoning of soils.
Does that mean we should give up farming? And start making our food in chemical labs?
Biotech start-up companies like Impossible Foods would have us believe that their fake meat is the answer to all our prayers. But is it?
The jury is out on the long-term health consequences of consuming lab-grown meat, the meat substitute created by Impossible Foods, and derived in part from genetically engineered yeast.
But this we do know: Real—and regenerative—farming, not lab-grown fake food, has the power to clean up the environment, revitalize rural communities and economies and provide enough nutritious, real food to feed the world.
Read ‘Ditching Nature in Favor of Fake Food Is Not the Solution to Destructive Factory Farming’
Read 'Impossible Burger and the Road to Consumer Distrust'
You would think that meat labeled “Product of U.S.A.” would come from cattle actually raised in the U.S.
Surprisingly (or maybe not), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) doesn’t see it that way.
Under current federal government labeling policy, imported beef can be labeled “Product of U.S.A.” as long as it passes through a U.S.-based meat inspection plant, or is blended with beef from cattle raised in the U.S.
That goes for 100% grassfed beef, too. And the policy is killing U.S. grassfed beef producers.
The American Grassfed Association (AGA) and the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) have submitted a petition to the USDA asking its Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) Agency change its labeling policy—to protect U.S. ranchers and consumers.
Please sign our petition asking for honest labels on imported beef. Deadline is midnight, August 17.
TAKE ACTION BY MIDNIGHT AUGUST 17: Sign the petition to help U.S. grassfed beef producers stop foreign meat from being labeled “Product of U.S.A.”
Read ‘Do You Know Where Your Meat Comes From?’
The biotech industry has long insisted that genetic engineering is no different than, or at the very least a continuum, of traditional plant breeding techniques—a myth perpetuated by the industry to shield it from public criticism, as well as from regulatory oversight. But a new study from the biotech industry itself admits that there are in fact significant differences between new methods of genetic engineering, including the gene-editing technique CRISPR, and conventional plant breeding, further dispelling the claim that the two methods are one in the same. The study lends support to the July 25, 2018, ruling by the European Court of Justice that food and crops produced using new gene-editing technologies must be regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—which in the EU means they must be labeled as GMOs. U.S. consumers should be so lucky. Unfortunately, in the U.S., where there is yet no meaningful law requiring the labeling of GMO foods, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has said it won’t even regulate gene-editing techniques, much less require labels on foods produced by those technologies. The USDA supports its no-regulation position by claiming that gene-editing technologies “are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods.” That claim isn’t shared by EU regulators. And it isn’t supported by scientists at DowDuPont, the world’s largest chemical company. Read ‘DowDuPont’s Own Scientists Confirm Critical Differences Between Gene-Editing and Conventional Plant Breeding Techniques’
More facts on gene-editing techniques
On Monday, July 23, DeWayne “Lee” Johnson” took the stand before a courtroom crowded with journalists and members of the public following the Johnson vs. Monsanto trial.
Johnson recalled life before his cancer diagnosis. He described the rigorous work ethic that he learned at his first job as a kitchen staffer at Applebee’s and how he carried those lessons to his job as school groundskeeper.
Without ever sounding boastful, he described the series of promotions that rewarded his reliability, competence and hard work. Following their marriage, Johnson’s life orbited around Araceli and their two sons. He attended every practice and worked Ali’s football games as a linesman moving the first down chains.
But then, the hardworking school groundskeeper was diagnosed with cancer, which he says was caused by Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.
Following his diagnosis, Lee tried to hide his pain from his family, but the tragedy, the loneliness, fear and his agony at all those losses sometimes overwhelmed him. He told the jury:
“I’m trying to show my kids an example of how to deal with things and crying is not going to help you, some things are uncontrollable. But I’m raising two little boys, so I’m teaching them to deal with pain and learn to deal with it and to deal with a situation if it comes to you. And sitting around sorrowful and crying is not going to help.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. continues his daily coverage of the Monsanto Trial.
Read ‘Plaintiff Testifies in Landmark Monsanto Roundup Trial’
Follow OCA’s coverage of the Monsanto trial
Make a tax-deductible donation to OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign
At the top of our website, under our name, we proudly—and ambitiously—state that we are “Campaigning for health, justice, sustainability, peace and democracy.”
We sometimes hear from the consumers on whose behalf we work, and from funders who support our work, that we should set our sights lower. No one person, no one organization can hope to achieve so much. “Focus,” we’re told. “Set more realistic goals.”
In our day-to-day work, we do set clear goals. But when it comes to the big picture, we endorse what Mark Bonchek, writing for the Harvard Business Review, calls “creating an exponential mindset.”
Because if we truly want the world we envision, we can’t think small. We can’t be satisfied with incremental change. As Bonchek writes:
Without an exponential mindset, Google would never have created such an ambitious vision as “organizing the world’s information,” Facebook would never have set out to “make the world more open and connected,” and Airbnb to “create a world where all 7 Billion people can Belong Anywhere.” Similarly, a group of innovative organizations in the public sector are out to solve global social issues by achieving “transformative scale.”
We believe that we can, must and will achieve “transformative scale” when it comes to our national and global food and farming system. And when we do, when we return control of our food system to farmers and other locally owned food-related businesses, we will address the issues of health, sustainability (or regeneration), peace and democracy.
But to get there, we'll all need an "exponential mindset."
Make a tax-deductible donation to the Organic Consumers Association
Make a tax-deductible donation to OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign
Support Citizens Regeneration Lobby (CRL), OCA’s sister lobbying organization Donations to CRL, a 501(c) (4) nonprofit, are not tax-deductible
Click here to learn about other ways to support our work
There are so many reasons to boycott chicken and turkey from factory farm operations, such as those run by Cargill, Pilgrim’s Pride, Sanderson Farms, Tyson and others.
Factory farm poultry operations pollute waterways. They cause unconscionable suffering for the birds. They’re big contributors to the public health crisis around antibiotic resistance. And they produce unhealthy food.
But we often forget that the people who work for these companies, in industrial poultry processing plants, are also victims of the factory farm poultry industry.
Jessica Robertson and Tina McClellan are two of those workers. They dared to speak out against working conditions that literally made them sick. Specifically, they complained about the use of a chemical called peracetic acid (PAA). PAA is used to remove bacteria from the carcasses of chickens and turkeys—even though it’s known to put workers at risk.
In this article in The Intercept, obertson and McClellan tell the story of how working at an industrial poultry processing plant ruined their health—and incurred the wrath of their employers.
Read ‘Something in the Air’
Watch the video
So many oils, so many uses.
For a growing number of health-conscious consumers, essential oils have become, well, essential.
Epoch Times provides a list of 25 ways to use essential oils. But for starters, you can:
• Massage them (blended with a carrier oil) into your skin• Add them to bathwater• Use them in a hot compress• Heat them in a diffuser• Rub a drop onto pulse points in lieu of perfume
Not familiar with what a carrier oil is? They’re oils that you mix with essential oils that are often highly concentrated. When applied topically, they help “carry” the essential oil.
Carrier oils benefits include:
• Organic Argan Oil: contains skin-moisturizing properties and healthy fatty acids• Organic Rose Hip Seed Oil: improves sun-damaged skin• Organic Jojoba: is non-allergenic, non-comedogenic
From now until midnight July 31, get 20% off your purchase of essential and carrier oils with this promo code: ORGANIC718. Plus, Mercola will donate 20% of your purchase price to OCA.
Shop now and get 20% off your purchase of organic essential and carrier oils.
14 Million Americans Are Drinking Carcinogen-Polluted Tap Water
This Is the Story of a Soap Company That Is Changing the World
This Common Drug Combo Raises Your Risk of Lethal Overdose Fivefold
Ed Begley, Jr. Attends Monsanto Trial
Replacing Vacant Lots with Green Spaces Can Ease Depression in Urban Communities
Clackamas County Officials Urge You to Soil Your Undies
American Academy of Pediatrics Calls for 'Urgently Needed Reforms' to Fix Broken Food Additive Regulatory System