GMO labeling (prop. 37) in Cal. appears to have failed--but victory otherwise for awareness, etc.

Apollonian

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Proposition 37 appears to have failed in California, but GMO labeling awareness achieves victory​

Link: http://www.infowars.com/proposition...-but-gmo-labeling-awareness-achieves-victory/

Mike Adams
Natural News
Nov 7, 2012

Proposition 37 appears to have failed at the ballot box in California, according to the California Secretary of State ballot measures results. The GMO labeling ballot measure, which would have required food companies to label the GM content of foods, was defeated with the use of over $45 million in fraudulent advertising and dirty tricks funded by Monsanto, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, DuPont, Bayer and other food and pesticide companies.

Over the last month, this cabal of deceptive companies has funneled money into a campaign of criminal fraud which, among other crimes, fabricated a fake FDA quote and sent out mailers that fraudulently used the FDA seal. A criminal complaint has already been filed with the FBI.

The “No on 37″ campaign also used fabricated front groups and impersonated a police organization (among others) to send out yet more fake mailers to voters, claiming that the police oppose GMO labeling. That fraudulent claim, of course, is entirely false.

Huge victory in terms of GMO awareness and grassroots support

The grassroots effort to pass Proposition 37 was supported by the efforts of millions of activists, plus financial donations from Mercola, Nature’s Path, Amy’s, Dr. Bronner and other companies. Natural News donated $10,000 to the effort and provided comprehensive editorial coverage of the grassroots effort. Click here to see a chart of who gave money to the effort.

And click here to see some of the “natural” brands that betrayed consumers with the “No on 37″ deception.

Those brands include Kashi, Silk, Cascadian Farm, Larabar and more.

In many ways, the YES on 37 campaign was a huge victory for awareness. The campaign organized over 10,000 volunteers in California alone and succeeded in achieving a massive social media presence.

The YES on 37 campaign also forced Monsanto and the biotech giants to spend $45 million to defeat the measure. That’s a record expenditure by the world’s largest toxic pesticide companies to try to prevent consumers from knowing what they’re buying. Remember: GMOs are the only products that consumers accidentally purchase without knowing what they’re buying.

What’s clear from all this is that GMO labeling has a foothold in the minds of American consumers, and this effort to label GMOs is going to be repeated state after state, year after year, until victory is achieved.

The biotech industry can no longer keep its dirty little secret: There’s poison in your food, folks, and the big food producers absolutely do not want you to know that you’re eating it.

The GMO labeling battle has only just begun

Monsanto and other companies appear to have won this showdown in California, but they are going to lose the war of deception against consumers. As awareness of GMOs continues to spread, people will demand honest labeling in increasing numbers.

The huge burst of awareness on Prop 37 has a lot of people asking the questions: Hey, what are GMOs? And why aren’t they labeled on foods?

That question will ultimately spell defeat for Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and all the other evil, deceptive corporations who bankrolled the “No in 37″ criminal fraud that deceived a majority of California voters.



Similar/Related Articles


GMO victory within reach? Proposition 37 is ‘likely to pass’ declares LA Times (but your help still needed!)
Monsanto shells out $4.2 million to sabotage California GMO labeling initiative
GMO victory within reach? Proposition 37 is ‘likely to pass’ declares LA Times
Death blow to GMOs? California ballot initiative calls for mandatory labeling
Six Largest Pesticide Corporations Funding Effort to Try to Defeat GMO Labeling Proposition 37
Kucinich Calls Out Monsanto: Americans Demand GMO Labeling
The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the free market
Monsanto Launches Massive Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling
Natural brands betray consumers over GMO labeling
FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign
NYT distorts GMO labeling issue, tries to make it a debate about crop yields
California’s Prop 37 exposes Monsanto GMO agenda
 
Foes of Prop 37 Pose as Fake Cops & Phony Democrats to Trick Voters​

Link: http://www.infowars.com/foes-of-prop-37-pose-as-fake-cops-phony-democrats-to-trick-voters/


Mel Fabrikant
The Paramus Post
November 6, 2012

Voter guides from obviously fake front groups posing as cops, literacy groups, green groups and Democrats are making a last-ditch attempt to try to sway voters against Proposition 37.

Pamela Prindle from Albany was alarmed when she received a slate mailer over the weekend from a group she thought was the Democratic Party, advising her to vote against the GMO labeling initiative. “I was so upset, I called the Democratic Party and they said their official position is endorsing Proposition 37,” Prindle said.

Then she realized the mailer — which features photos of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy — was from a group called the Democratic Voter’s Choice which has a notorious reputation for deception. “People are going to get this in the mail three days before the election and they’re not going to take the time to check into it like I did,” Prindle said.

“This is just one of many examples of slate mailers from obviously fake front groups trying to trick voters about Proposition 37,” said Dave Murphy, co-chair of the California Right to Know Yes on 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now!

Read full article



Similar/Related Articles


Democrats counting on Latino voters to maintain power
Not So Green: Voters Nix Most Environmental State Ballot Measures
Missouri Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Mandated Health Care
Independent America: Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves
Voters and FBI put on alert: Massive deceptions found in the No on 37 campaign, all documented
Guilford Co. NC Voters Say Ballot Cast for Romney Came up Obama on Machine
Voters Take to Social Media to Report Massive Vote Fraud
Dennis Kucinich: Fake Taliban Leader, Fake Elections, Fake Deadline, Real Trouble
Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage
Survey says Latino voters sticking with Obama
Angry Voters Jam Capitol Hill Phone Lines
9/11 produced permanent shift to Republican Party among new young US voters
 
Voters and FBI put on alert: Massive deceptions found in the No on 37 campaign, all documented​

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Smilardog

Link: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c...n-the-no-on-37-campaign-all-documented/25273/

Natural News – by Summer Tierney Published November 6, 2012

Campaign supporters of genetically manipulated foods could soon find themselves involved in a federal criminal investigation, related to their own manipulation of voters in California’s hotly debated Proposition 37.

Even as ballots are still being cast in the battle over the measure, which would require labeling for genetically modified (GM) foods, the fight is taking an unexpected turn – straight into FBI headquarters. The agency reportedly contacted an attorney for the CA Right to Know campaign, in response to an official complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice on October 18, which cited numerous, and likely criminal, actions by the “No on 37″ campaign.

Opponents of the Prop 37 ballot measure were reportedly caught red-handed spouting lie after lie in campaign advertisements distributed in recent weeks. In one advertisement – the one that’s now getting the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation – campaign backers featured the FDA logo just below this direct quote: “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading’.”

The only problem is that the FDA denies it ever made any such statement… Woops. This means, as stated in the CA Right to Know official complaint, that “the use of the FDA’s seal and authority for political purposes appears to be in clear violation of criminal statutes.” Though the FBI has not yet said whether it will move forward with a formal investigation, the agency has referred the complaint to the FDA for further inquiry. At this time, CA Right to Know is confident the matter is “being taken seriously by all relevant agencies.”

‘No on 37′ gets caught in its own sticky web of lies

But the FDA isn’t the only group claiming they’ve been misrepresented in anti-Prop 37 campaign materials. In fact, the laundry list of misdeeds appears to be quite long, even by the assessments of the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, who have described the group’s ads as misleading.

According to a press statement issued by CA Right to Know (http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions) which has been well and thoroughly documented, statements made by the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics indicate those organizations were also grossly misrepresented by the “No on 37” campaign, in the official California Voter Guide. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even went so far as to subsequently issue its own press release to voters, expressing concerns over the misrepresentation, and clarifying its position that “the Academy supports consumers right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.”

In fact, the only group named on that voter guide list of opponents to Prop 37 that really do oppose it is the American Council on Science and Health, which is really just a “notorious front group for the pesticide industry and climate change deniers”, says CA Right to Know. Its list of documented deceptions goes on to expose other front groups which may at first seem well-meaning and harmless – groups like the “Coalition for Literacy” (formerly an anti-tobacco Prop 27 opponent back in May), the Cops Voting Guide (a man named Kelley Moran who’s actual profession is “political consultant”), and Californians Vote Green (whose website’s only help in determining why they might oppose the measure is to “please direct inquiries to Paul”).

But who would pay for a campaign of such lies and trickery? Only the very same organizations that have been pulling the wool over the eyes of American consumers for decades. To date, biotech industry giants have donated in excess of $41 million dollars to defeat the labeling initiative. But no amount of “hush money” can hide the truth forever. Whether Prop 37 passes at California polls on Tuesday or not, Americans all over the country are already waking up to the truth about GMO and reclaiming their right to know.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/fbi_contacts

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

http://www.carighttoknow.org/deptofjustice

http://www.kpbs.org

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037858_No_on_37_criminal_fraud_deception.html#ixzz2BXh9C9fU
 
The FDA Doesn’t Even TEST the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods​

Posted on November 7, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Link: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...e-safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods.html

GMO Food Producers “Voluntarily Consult”, But There Is NO Real Safety Testing

Many people assume that the Food and Drug Administration tests genetically engineered foods for safety.

But as USA Today reports:


Q: Does the FDA test these foods before they’re allowed on the market?

A: No. Instead there is a voluntary consultation process. Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process. Foods are presumed to be safe unless the FDA has evidence to the contrary, Jaffe says. The FDA “has to show that there may be a problem with the food, as opposed to the company needing to prove it’s safe to FDA’s satisfaction before it can get on the market,” he says.

Given that genetically engineered foods have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver failure, infertility and all sorts of other diseases (brief videos here and here), the burden should be on the Monsanto and the other gmo producers to prove it’s safe.
 
Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Defeat of Prop 37 Means Go Back To Voting With Your Fork ​

Link: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/11/the-defeat-of-prop-37-means-go-back-to.html


Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post

While many of us are disappointed with the results of the CA proposition 37 ballot initiative, to say the least, the political process is so corrupted with unlimited corporate spending1 that the real surprise for me would have been if it had passed.

Whereas the two-party system enables corporations to equally fatten the campaign larders of both "flavors" of senator, or president – Coke or Pepsi; Democrat or Republican – ensuring that while the public thinks one side is the victor, they get their hooks in no matter who wins, the California ballot initiative was actually a grassroots effort where the only side being funded by the multi-national corporations was the one against the people's right to know what's in their food.

In other words, this was a unique opportunity for an increasingly co-opted and "entertainment value only" American political system to vindicate itself, showing that a legitimate basic human right (informed consent; the right to choose not to consume potential toxins) could attain legal-regulatory support if enough folks voted for it.

Unfortunately, however, CA voters are highly susceptible to propaganda. The overwhelming majority support for Prop 37 eroded in the last few days before the vote. In essence, $48 million dollars of misleading media, advertising and even criminal misrepresentation of the truth, was enough to scare people into not doing what is so obviously required for there to be a semblance of food and health freedom in this country: the right to know what you are eating, and as a result, being able to choose to not eat something that is potentially toxic.



So, the truth and the people's will can and will continue to be outspent... UNLESS, we decide to heighten our awareness of the issue (which the Yes to 37 campaign undoubtedly did, on an unprecedented, massive scale), and learn to take our daily food purchases as seriously as we do our vote...


Here are a few suggestions:

Do not buy anything that contains corn, soy, beet sugar, canola, cow's dairy, papaya and is not explicitly labeled either "non-GMO" (in the case of milk "rBGH free") or "USDA certified organic."

Avoid "natural brands" owned by pro-GMO mega-corporations, e.g. Heinz owns Spectrum Organics, M&M owns Seeds of Change, Hershey Foods owns Dagoba, Coca-Cola owns Odwalla. See entire list in the infographic here. Why not support these brands? Because even if you are buying one of their products containing an organic ingredient, the money goes to a corporation whose overall net effect is likely to expand non-organic practices versus organic ones. Or worse, the brands are simply labeled "natural" when they contain no organic ingredients, or even genetically modified ones.

Avoid restaurant food whose ingredients are not clearly apparent. Have a discussion with the server and manager if necessary in order to express to them your desire to eat non-GMO foods. These efforts can go a long way in making a difference in the way they source and label foods in their menu.

Each and every purchasing decision you make today will have lasting effects tomorrow. Unlike plying massive efforts towards generating a majority vote on a ballot initiative, or getting our president to live up to his now failed GMO labeling campaign promises, the positive effect is immediate and will ripple out in ways that are deeper (even while being harder to directly measure) than simply changing labeling requirements.

So, given that the political process has put a stopper on much of the momentum behind the pro-labeling movement, send a message today by withdrawing your support (with your dollars, your forks, your mouths!) for the companies that do not support your right to know.

Their bottom line is the only thing they will listen to.

Resources

1 DemocracyNow.org, Citizen's United "opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns."


This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
 
I can't see how this one failed, other than people who don't read carefully as they are voting.

I'm far from being a granola head or a hippie but this is something that I would support in my own state. People deserve to know if they are getting frankenfood.
 
Tricknologist said:
I can't see how this one failed, other than people who don't read carefully as they are voting.

I'm far from being a granola head or a hippie but this is something that I would support in my own state. People deserve to know if they are getting frankenfood.
Click to expand...

* * * * * * *

Absolutely, trick: note that GMO stuff is DESIGNED to STERILIZE the people on grounds of population-reduction--this is their EXPLICITLY announced plan ("agenda 21") and powers behind UN and US Fed (and the big commercial banks).

Mass-murder for purpose of de-population is behind grossly contaminated vaccines, "chem-trails," fluoridated water, and even extremely dangerous prescription drugs, too, aside fm toxic additives like aspartame, MSG, bisphenol A, not to mention others too.
 
California GMO-Labeling Ballot Measure Fails ​

Link: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13567-california-gmo-labeling-ballot-measure-fails

Written by Raven Clabough


Voters in California voted against Proposition 37, the initiative that would have mandated genetically engineered foods be labeled, on Tuesday. The final results on the ballot measure were 53.1 percent opposed to the measure and 46.9 percent in favor.

California was the first state to allow voters, instead of lawmakers, to decide whether labels like “This product contains GMOs” will appear on food packages. Advocates of labels in California managed to garner one million signatures on a petition to get Proposition 37, also know as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, on the November ballot.

While the California Right to Know campaign was fought on behalf of Proposition 37, major biotech companies such as Monsanto fought to counter it through the "No on 37" campaign, on which over $45 million was spent.

As noted by Rodale News, genetically modified ingredients are “derived from lab-created plants that have been genetically modified to resist (and sometimes even create their own) toxic pesticides, withstand drought, or produce higher yields.”

A recent study conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen in France provoked concerns about the use of GMOs with a study in which a Monsanto seed variety known as NK603, made tolerant to the company’s Roundup herbicide, was fed to rats. The rats fed the GM corn developed tumors and experienced kidney and liver damage.

Natural Society explains: “As a result of the mass tumors, liver and kidney damage, it was concluded that around 50 percent of the males and 70 percent of the females died prematurely as a result of eating only Roundup tolerant seed or drinking water with Roundup [at] approved levels set by the United States government.” Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup at levels that are legally permitted in the water supply had a 200-percent to 300-percent increase in large tumors over rats drinking uncontaminated water.

Natural News notes, “This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.”

The study may potentially lead to the widespread suspension of use of genetically modified corn throughout Europe. But in the United States, a measure to simply label the GMOs could not pass.

According to opponents of Proposition 37, the measure would have unfairly stigmatized foods that they claim are perfectly safe for consumption. "We said from the beginning that the more voters learned about Prop. 37, the less they would like it," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition. "We didn't think they would like the lawsuits, more bureaucracy, higher costs, loopholes and exemptions. It looks like they don't." "California voters clearly saw through Proposition 37 and rejected higher food costs, more lawsuits and more bureaucracy," said Henry I. Miller, a spokesman for the "No on 37" campaign, on its television spots.

But those who supported the measure assert that there is more to the measure’s failure than simply a rejection by consumers of more regulation. They have accused Proposition 37 opponents of misleading the public in their ads by improperly invoking the Food and Drug Administration. The quote in question is as follows: "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'"

According to the California Right to Know campaign, the FDA never made such an observation. Natural News reports, “The FDA never actually issued such a statement, of course, as the law prohibits the agency from taking an official position on the matter. But for its own malicious purposes, the No on 37 campaign decided to affix both the quote and the FDA seal on its campaign propaganda in an attempt to sway public opinion against the measure.”

Deliberate falsification of quotes and logs for the purposes of campaigns is in violation of Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code, and as such, California’s Right to Know campaign has reported No on 37’s criminal act to the Department of Justice.

Additionally, the “No on 37” campaign has been accused of fabricating front groups and impersonating a police organization to send out fake mailers to voters, claiming that that the police were also opposed to GMO labeling, a claim that Natural News contends is “entirely false.”

The majority of the opposition to Proposition 37 has been funded by big chemical, and biotech, and food processing companies, most notably Monsanto. Curiously, many companies that sell organic foods were opposed to the measure, but these organic brand-name companies are generally owned by large food processing companies that would stand to lose if Proposition 37 was passed, since, by definition, organic foods would be prohibited from containing GMOs. The "No on 37" coalition raised over $45 million dollars to defeat the law.

According to data collected by cornucopia.org, the largest donors to the "No on 37" campaign were Monsanto, at over $8 million, and DuPont, at over $4 million, since the ballot initiative was first approved in May. Others include Pepsico, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, General Mills, J.M. Smucker, Ocean Spray, and Hormel Foods. Companies that purport to be “natural” but sided with the “No on 37” campaign include Kashi, Silk, Cascadian Farm, and Larabar.

Supporters of Proposition 37 included Dr. Joseph Mercola, Nature’s Path, Amy’s, Dr. Bronner, Organic Valley, Lundberg Farms, and Eden Organics.

Regardless of the loss, advocates of GMO labeling were proud of their efforts to raise public awareness on the use of GMOs in regularly consumed products. "Proposition 37 placed the issue of GE [genetically engineered] food labeling front and center and took critical steps forward in heightening the discussion and raising the profile to make labeling and transparency around our food a reality for the nation," said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It. Similarly, as Natural News noted, “The campaign organized over 10,000 volunteers in California alone and succeeded in achieving a massive social media presence.”

The fact that the "Yes on 37" campaign forced giant biotech companies to spend over $45 million is also a significant feat, as that is “a record expenditure by the world’s largest toxic pesticide companies to try to prevent consumers from knowing what they’re buying,” adds Natural News.

Still, the results out of California came as a surprise for many. According to Rodale News, more than 75 percent of processed foods include genetically modified organisms, even as surveys show that 90 percent of Americans wish to see genetically modified foods labeled.
 
Organically grown food tastes much better and is much better for you healthwise. Most fat people are actually starving--starving for real nutrients and that's why they are always hungry all the time and they are always eating. Unfortunately, in their attempt to satisfy nutritional requirements with junk "food" and GMO "food" they get fatter and fatter and hungrier every day. From what I recently read, it's possible for an obese person to starve to death and be totally obese when he or she dies. All they have is fat and toxins and no vitamins or enough proteins when they die. They die balls of blubber yet starved to death. I wonder how many fat-asses have starved to death in their own fat during emergencies like Andrew, Katrina, Rita and Sandy?
As long as we continue to eat GMO "foods", junk "food" and wash it all down with High Fructose Corn-syrup-laden drinks, we are going to be a nation of fat, starving, sick people. In a McDonald's meal, you get hormone-laden beef, from animals fed with GMO "food" raised in chemical fertilizers and insecticides, you get fries made from GMO potatoes, raised with inorganic chemical fertilizers and pesticides and they are fried in GMO Canola/Rapeseed oil from rape plants raised in chemical fertilizers and insecticides. Then you have Sodas with all kinds of toxic chemicals, sweetened from toxic High Fructose Corn Syrup which goes directly to your liver and causes damage. Not only that, it comes from Corn grain from corn that is GMO and raised in chemical fertilizers and insecticides. The 'cheese' product aka Amerikwan 'cheese' comes from cows imprisoned in cages, fed CAFO/GMO "foods", injected with hormones and fed antibiotics and other garbage. The cows are diseased and the pasteurization does not kill all the bad bacteria. So, when fat-asses subsist on such nutrient depleted, chemically fertilized GMO "food" they literally starve themselves of vital nutrients. Their brains can't function well because of the hydrogenated vegetable fats literally becoming part of their brains. Then you have the blind trust in "scientists" and "doctors" who claim they know what's good for us, the blatant propaganda against Proposition 37, the jews banking of dumbed down people and you get sheeple who will vote the way the jews/big Pharma/big Agro want.

:barf4:
 
New Varieties of Genetically Modified Tomatoes Coming Soon To a Grocery Near You​

November 8, 2012 | By admin | Reply

Link: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/...d-tomatoes-coming-soon-to-a-grocery-near-you/

April McCarthy, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

The tomato was one of the first commercially available genetically modified (GM) crops. In 1994, GM tomatoes hit the market in the US but have since disappeared. They’re about to make a come back at a grocery near you.

Earlier forms of this GM crop included the transgenic tomato (FlavrSavr) which had a “deactivated” gene. This meant that the tomato plant was no longer able to produce polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening. The premise was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavour. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially.

These GM tomatoes, however, did not meet their expectations. Although they were approved in the US and several other countries, tomatoes with delayed ripening have disappeared from the market after peaking in 1998.

Today, tomatoes are being genetically modified to produce a peptide that mimics the actions of HDL cholesterol that biotechnology groups are promoting to supposedly reduce heart disease.

Led by Dr Alan Fogelman from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), USA, his study found that consumption of GM tomatoes resulted in reductions of plaque build-up in arteries (atherosclerosis).

“To our knowledge this is the first example of a drug with these properties that has been produced in an edible plant and is biologically active when fed without any isolation or purification,” said Fogelman.



The rollout into major grocery retailers is expected, however no timeline has been established until more research is completed.

Research Details

The UCLA team genetically engineered tomatoes to produce 6F — a small peptide that mimics the action of ApoA-1, which is the main protein of high density lipoprotein (HDL) or ‘good’ cholesterol.

Fogelman and his team fed the tomatoes to mice that lack the ability to remove low density lipoprotein (LDL) or cholesterol from their blood, and therefore develop inflammation and atherosclerosis when consuming a high-fat diet.

Similar gene modification techniques were devised in GM crops that led to tumors in a long-term widely publicized study on GM corn fed rats.

“The problem remains as with all GM techniques, that we simply don’t know what the long-term effects of consuming such foods will be since short-term studies can never tell us,” said researcher and geneticist Professor Thomas Tranter.

Multiple Projects

There are many other biotech projects aiming to enrich tomatoes with substances that may offer health benefits which claim to be more nutritious, however no human or long-term studies are planned to discover their effects on metabolism.

Monsanto developed tomatoes that delayed ripening by preventing the production of ethylene, a hormone that triggers ripening of fruit. Although the tomatoes were briefly tested in the marketplace, patent arguments forced its withdrawal.

Tomatoes (along with potatoes, bananas and other plants) are also being investigated as vehicles for delivering edible vaccines. Clinical trials have been conducted on mice using tomatoes that stimulate antibody production targeted to norovirus, hepatitis B, rabies, HIV and anthrax.

Korean scientists are looking at using the tomato to expressing a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease. Hilary Koprowski, who was involved in the development of the polio vaccine, is leading a group of researchers in developing a tomato expressing a recombinant vaccine to SARS.

Although GM foods can only be planted in many countries as part of a trial, and even then only under strict conditions, millions of hectares of the crops have already been planted in the Americas.

Campaigners have warned that there is no compulsory labelling of meat or dairy products from animals which have been fed on GM crops, and that any long-term problems from eating the foods is still unknown.

The most recent proposition 37 for GM labeling in California was tossed out in a controversial yet official State ballot which lost 53% of the votes.

Sources:
telegraph.co.uk
wikipedia.org
nutraingredients.com
gmo-compass.org

April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.


Related Posts:

1. The Human Feeding Experiment and New Disease
2. 10 Reasons Why We Don’t Need GM Foods
3. Monsanto: How Cheap Food Makes Us All Poor
4. The Facts About Fluoride & Human Intelligence
5. The Future of Food (Video)
 
The Fight for Real Organic Food Continues​

November 7, 2012 | By admin | 2 Replies

Link: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/07/the-fight-for-real-organic-food/

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

Greed and power in the food industry is turning a trip to the grocery store into an objectionable experience, as processed and factory foods are further pushed onto the unwitting public.

On the positive side, however, most of us now have plenty of organic options, providing we know where to shop and how to find the good stuff. From fresh organic produce, to organic and compassionately farmed animal products, to a variety of delicious organic packaged foods, it is now easier than ever to eat healthy and stay away from unwanted pesticides, antibiotics, GMO ingredients, and synthetic additives in our food.

And now that Proposition 37 in California to label GMO foods has been defeated by the food industry and a sleeping populace, it is more important then ever to know how how to access and support the organic food movement. In a big way, your life depends on it.

Consumers must be prepared to demand and fight for high-quality organic options in our supermarkets, or we will be faced with a further degradation of production standards, questionable business practices, and conflict of interest matters.

Big Agra Conflict of Interest

A recent issue raised by various organic food industry watchdogs has been the presence of conflict of interest that has influenced decisions on what food additives are approved for use in organic packaged products. US organizations, such as the Cornucopia Institute and Center for Food Safety, have recently raised the issue of Big Agra business encroaching on the independent oversight that the US National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has over what synthetic items can be added to the approved National List. This list includes processed synthetic items and processes that are approved for use in organic packaged products.

The following video from Cornucopia Institute provides a thorough overview regarding this issue:


A conflict of interest question has been raised regarding who makes the decisions about what contractors and consultants conduct technical or TAB reviews of materials on the National List of approved organic ingredients. Currently, the NOSB does not hold the final decision in this; instead, the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), the designated federal officer that participates in NOSB meetings, and the USDA Office of Ethics are said to carry an unethical influence over these decisions.



The decisions of the NOSB significantly affect the direction of the organic industry and what synthetic items are actually considered acceptable organic food components. Questionable items are already approved, such as the food additive Carrageenan, which was re-approved for use in organic food processing as of the Spring 2012 NOSB meeting.


“Degraded carrageenan,” which is present in all food-grade carrageenan, is classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of Science in United States. – Cornucopia Institute
.
Who Owns Organic

It can be quite shocking to realize that we’re at a stage of having a “possible human carcinogen” approved as an ingredient in our organic products. Perhaps as awareness of this grows, concerned industry players, consumers and government officials will implement new checks and balances to ensure that less conflict of interest exists in the NOSB in the US, and in similar organic industry authorities worldwide. Industry oversight will grow in importance now that most non-organic, all-American brands, many of which are supporting Monsanto’s no GMO labeling efforts, are the same companies that have been heavily investing in the organic industry over the last 15+ years.


Some of the big food companies that have given money to the [GMO] anti-labeling cause also own organic brands, such as Kellogg Co., which owns the Kashi cereal brand, Dean Foods Co., owner of the Horizon organic dairy line and J.M. Smucker Co., which owns several organic brands. – Wall Street Journal
.
Here’s a PDF of the top food companies in the US and their ownership ties to well-known organic brands (as of June 2009): http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf

Click here to download a short video created by Dr. Phil Howard, Assistant Professor at Michigan State University about who owns some of the more well-known organic brands.

How to Shop Organic

Let’s agree that buying food is much more complicated than it used to be, especially for the aware, health-conscious individual. There are more choices than ever, but these choices come from fewer companies. For shoppers, it is vitally important to understand the labeling process currently employed in the organic food industry. This is why people who want to label GMO foods are so passionate about this cause: labels are one of a few ways, if not the only way, that consumers can make informed decisions about what food they buy.

The USDA’s NOP offers some insight on its website about the labeling requirements of organic products, which can be viewed in the Labeling Organic Products PDF.

Here’s a quick video with Anne Lappe, author of “Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen,” offering an overview of how to identify organic foods in stores:


In the video, Lappe mentions that buying organic produce is easy – it’s either organic or not. But what if your organic produce selection is limited? Or you’re on a budget, and shopping all organic is breaking the bank. Here’s a quick review of what fresh produce is typically most heavily treated with pesticides and which is not: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

Here is another article with some insight regarding organic dairy, meat and seafood. http://www.motherearthliving.com/food-for-health/what-we-eat.aspx

Think Local

If you already buy organic products or just want to eat healthier, don’t get discouraged by this article. It is a resource. Take this opportunity to learn from the wealth of information available here, and start making even better food choices. In our world, it is difficult to be 100% organic. But there are ways you can move closer toward this goal. Support smaller organic food producers and local farms. Eat fresh and raw foods. Start an organic garden or become involved in a community urban farming project. And stay informed and educated, so YOU are the one who decides on what food ends up on your dinner table.



Sources:

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/05/wildfires-rage-at-new-mexican-organic-meetings/

http://foodbabe.com/2012/05/22/watch-out-for-this-carcinogen-in-your-organic-food/

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CFS-NOSB-Comments-24-Sept-2012.pdf

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.motherearthliving.com/food-for-health/what-we-eat.aspx

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=7580

http://www.cornucopia.org/Cultivator-Summer-2012.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578073182907123760.html

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com, and an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…


Related Posts:
1. Hemp Can Repair DNA!
2. Monsanto in Paradise: How to Stop Big-Ag From Destroying Hawaii
3. Four Jamaican Sprinters are the Fastest in the World: What are They Doing so Right?
4. GMO Pharmacy: The Pervasiveness of GMOs in Medicines and Supplements
5. The Power of Hemp and Its Countless Uses
 
The Defeat of Prop 37 Means Go Back To Voting With Your Fork
Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/11/the-defeat-of-prop-37-means-go-back-to.html

While many of us are disappointed with the results of the CA proposition 37 ballot initiative, to say the least, the political process is so corrupted with unlimited corporate spending 1 that the real surprise for me would have been if it had passed.

Whereas the (apparent) two-party system enables corporations to equally fatten the campaign larders of both "flavors" of senator, or president – Coke or Pepsi; dog s'hit or cat s'hit; Democrat or Republican – ensuring that while the public thinks one side is the victor, they get their hooks in no matter who wins, the California ballot initiative was actually a grassroots effort where the only side being funded by the multi-national corporations was the one against the People's right to know what's in their food.

In other words, this was a unique opportunity for an increasingly co-opted and "entertainment value only" American political system to vindicate itself, showing that a legitimate basic human Right (informed consent; the Right to choose NOT to consume potential toxins) could attain legal-regulatory support if enough folks voted for it.

Unfortunately, however, CA voters are highly susceptible to propaganda. The overwhelming majority support for Prop 37 eroded in the last few days before the vote. In essence, $48 million dollars of misleading media, advertising and even criminal misrepresentation of the truth, was enough to scare people into not doing what is so obviously required for there to be a semblance of food and health freedom in this country: the right to know what you are eating, and as a result, being able to choose to not eat something that is potentially toxic. Shame on the sheeple!

So, the truth and the people's will can and will continue to be outspent... UNLESS, we decide to heighten our awareness of the issue (which the Yes to 37 campaign undoubtedly did, on an unprecedented, massive scale), and learn to take our daily food purchases as seriously as we do our vote...

Here are a few suggestions:

Do not buy anything that contains corn, soy, beet sugar, canola, (non-organic) cow's dairy (cheese, milk, yogurt, etc.), papaya, non-organic zucchini, non-organic potatoes and is not explicitly labeled either "non-GMO" (in the case of milk "rBGH free") or "USDA certified organic."
Avoid "natural brands" owned by pro-GMO mega-corporations, e.g. Heinz owns Spectrum Organics, M&M owns Seeds of Change, Hershey Foods owns Dagoba, Coca-Cola owns Odwalla. See entire list in the infographic here http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf.

Why not support these brands? Because even if you are buying one of their products containing an organic ingredient, the money goes to a corporation whose overall net effect is likely to expand non-organic practices versus organic ones. Or worse, the brands are simply labeled "natural" when they contain no organic ingredients, or even genetically modified ones.

Coca cola and pepsi have even been used as insecticides according to some rumors. Apparently they work. They can also be used as chemical cleaners as well. Also, they have GMO high fructose corn syrup which has mercury and is bad for your pancreas. HFCS is worse for you than cane sugar, which is not (yet) GMO. Pepsi has been involved in experiments of aborted (mostly white) babies and this is another reason not to drink any or anything related to pepsi!

Avoid restaurant food whose ingredients are not clearly apparent. Have a discussion with the server and manager if necessary in order to express to them your desire to eat non-GMO foods. These efforts can go a long way in making a difference in the way they source and label foods in their menu.

Each and every purchasing decision you make today will have lasting effects tomorrow. Unlike plying massive efforts towards generating a majority vote on a ballot initiative, or getting our HNIC to live up to his now failed GMO labeling campaign promises, the positive effect is immediate and will ripple out in ways that are deeper (even while being harder to directly measure) than simply changing labeling requirements.

So, given that the political process has put a stopper on much of the momentum behind the pro-labeling movement, send a message today by withdrawing your support (with your dollars, your forks, your mouths!) for the companies that do not support your right to know.

Their bottom line is the only thing they will listen to. Money.

Resources
1 DemocracyNow.org, Citizen's United "opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns."

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
 
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/07/the-fight-for-real-organic-food/

The Fight for Real Organic Food Continues
November 7, 2012

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

Greed and power in the food industry is turning a trip to the grocery store into an objectionable experience, as processed and factory foods are further pushed onto the unwitting public.

On the positive side, however, most of us now have plenty of organic options, providing we know where to shop and how to find the good stuff. From fresh organic produce, to organic and compassionately farmed animal products, to a variety of delicious organic packaged foods, it is now easier than ever to eat healthy and stay away from unwanted pesticides, antibiotics, GMO ingredients, and synthetic additives in our food.

And now that Proposition 37 in California to label GMO foods has been defeated by the food industry and a sleeping populace, it is more important then ever to know how how to access and support the organic food movement. In a big way, your life depends on it.

Consumers must be prepared to demand and fight for high-quality organic options in our supermarkets, or we will be faced with a further degradation of production standards, questionable business practices, and conflict of interest matters.
Big Agra Conflict of Interest

A recent issue raised by various organic food industry watchdogs has been the presence of conflict of interest that has influenced decisions on what food additives are approved for use in organic packaged products. US organizations, such as the Cornucopia Institute and Center for Food Safety, have recently raised the issue of Big Agra business encroaching on the independent oversight that the US National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has over what synthetic items can be added to the approved National List. This list includes processed synthetic items and processes that are approved for use in organic packaged products.

The following video from Cornucopia Institute provides a thorough overview regarding this issue:

A conflict of interest question has been raised regarding who makes the decisions about what contractors and consultants conduct technical or TAB reviews of materials on the National List of approved organic ingredients. Currently, the NOSB does not hold the final decision in this; instead, the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), the designated federal officer that participates in NOSB meetings, and the USDA Office of Ethics are said to carry an unethical influence over these decisions.

The decisions of the NOSB significantly affect the direction of the organic industry and what synthetic items are actually considered acceptable organic food components. Questionable items are already approved, such as the food additive Carrageenan, which was re-approved for use in organic food processing as of the Spring 2012 NOSB meeting.

“Degraded carrageenan,” which is present in all food-grade carrageenan, is classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of Science in United States. – Cornucopia Institute

Who Owns Organic

It can be quite shocking to realize that we’re at a stage of having a “possible human carcinogen” approved as an ingredient in our organic products. Perhaps as awareness of this grows, concerned industry players, consumers and government officials will implement new checks and balances to ensure that less conflict of interest exists in the NOSB in the US, and in similar organic industry authorities worldwide. Industry oversight will grow in importance now that most non-organic, all-American brands, many of which are supporting Monsanto’s no GMO labeling efforts, are the same companies that have been heavily investing in the organic industry over the last 15+ years.[/'b]

Yep, ZOG owns some of the organic food making businesses as a way to coopt and corrupt the Organic Foods Industry.

Some of the big food companies that have given money to the [GMO] anti-labeling cause also own organic brands, such as Kellogg Co., which owns the Kashi cereal brand (which is trash anyway), Dean Foods Co., owner of the Horizon organic dairy line and J.M. Smucker Co., which owns several organic brands. – Wall Street Journal

Here’s a PDF of the top food companies in the US and their ownership ties to well-known organic brands (as of June 2009): http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf

Click here to download a short video created by Dr. Phil Howard, Assistant Professor at Michigan State University about who owns some of the more well-known organic brands.
How to Shop Organic

Let’s agree that buying food is much more complicated than it used to be, especially for the aware, health-conscious individual. There are more choices than ever, but these choices come from fewer companies. For shoppers, it is vitally important to understand the labeling process currently employed in the organic food industry. This is why people who want to label GMO foods are so passionate about this cause: labels are one of a few ways, if not the only way, that consumers can make informed decisions about what food they buy.

The USDA’s NOP offers some insight on its website about the labeling requirements of organic products, which can be viewed in the Labeling Organic Products PDF.

Here’s a quick video with Anne Lappe, author of “Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen,” offering an overview of how to identify organic foods in stores:

In the video, Lappe mentions that buying organic produce is easy – it’s either organic or not. But what if your organic produce selection is limited? Or you’re on a budget, and shopping all organic is breaking the bank. Here’s a quick review of what fresh produce is typically most heavily treated with pesticides and which is not: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

Here is another article with some insight regarding organic dairy, meat and seafood. http://www.motherearthliving.com/food-for-health/what-we-eat.aspx

Think Local

If you already buy organic products or just want to eat healthier, don’t get discouraged by this article. It is a resource. Take this opportunity to learn from the wealth of information available here, and start making even better food choices. In our world, it is difficult to be 100% organic. But there are ways you can move closer toward this goal. Support smaller organic food producers and local farms. Eat fresh and raw foods. Start an organic garden or become involved in a community urban farming project. And stay informed and educated, so YOU are the one who decides on what food ends up on your dinner table. 14.88!

Sources:

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/05/wildfires-rage-at-new-mexican-organic-meetings/

http://foodbabe.com/2012/05/22/watch-out-for-this-carcinogen-in-your-organic-food/

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CFS-NOSB-Comments-24-Sept-2012.pdf

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.motherearthliving.com/food-for-health/what-we-eat.aspx

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=7580

http://www.cornucopia.org/Cultivator-Summer-2012.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578073182907123760.html
 
People who live in compact, urban centers are limited. But, if you are White, you really shouldn't be living in a city anyway. Not only is it harder to get organic food, but you are in a death trap when things go wrong. Just look at NYC right now. If they don't get things in order there soon, it will be chaos.

In my area, there are farms that offer subscriptions to get one a portion of the organic harvest. Great for those who don't have enough land to grow piles of food. Look around in your area. There are resources out there. And, if you buy local, as Ensis is talking about, you are keeping your money in the community. Some in my area even offer organic poulty and meats.
 
Tricknologist said:
People who live in compact, urban centers are limited. But, if you are White, you really shouldn't be living in a city anyway. Not only is it harder to get organic food, but you are in a death trap when things go wrong. Just look at NYC right now. If they don't get things in order there soon, it will be chaos.

In my area, there are farms that offer subscriptions to get one a portion of the organic harvest. Great for those who don't have enough land to grow piles of food. Look around in your area. There are resources out there. And, if you buy local, as Ensis is talking about, you are keeping your money in the community. Some in my area even offer organic poulty and meats.
Click to expand...

You can even grow your own food inside your house without too much problems.It may be a viable alternative especially if jiggy Obongo decides to outlaw home food gardens. You will need to be resourceful concerning such gardening then. Also, look to see what weeds are edible and deliberately cultivate them. Purslane, dandelions, dock roots, the root ends of nut sedges, kudzu, knotweed, cattail roots, sprouts,young flower-heads (cook like corn!), its edible yellow pollen (use as flour!) and other "weeds" may save us in horrible times. Look for books on wild foods and edible weeds. And while insects are not considered food, they are eaten in many nations and will keep people alive.
In 1958 a group of deer hunters starved to death. Ironically, they were surrounded by food they could have eaten had they known about it. They could have eaten beetle grubs found under the ground, earthworms and the inner bark of pine trees and firs. Yes, I appreciate the fact that people don't like the idea...but had they also known about these wild foods, they would have survived their ordeal due to lack of deer.

14.88!
 
Prop 37 election fraud? ​

Link: http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/prop_37_demand_transparency/?akid=686.283331.bXLxNh&rd=1&t=3

Right now the votes for Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods are still being counted. On Tuesday morning, Dec 4th, Prop 37 hit 6,004,628 votes on the California Secretary of State’s website, but this tally was quickly reversed within an hour of being publicized by Food Democracy Now!

Since November 6th, the vote count in California has been updated daily until December 4th, when the vote count hit 6 million for the first time. When contacted, the Secretary of State's office stated there would be no further updates to the vote totals until Dec 14th when state law requires the election results to be certified. County elected officials only have until COB Dec 7th to submit final results so we need your help now!

At the same time, Food Democracy Now! has learned that a team of independent statisticians have detected “statistical anomalies” in the largest precincts of 9 counties, including Orange, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda and San Diego counties.

We find this news troubling and think it’s important that the Secretary of State’s office know that we are watching these developments closely and expect honest and fair election results.

Join us in standing up for open and transparent elections, it’s important that all votes be counted and any possible malfeasance is properly investigated by California election officials. Count all the ballots, be open and transparent, because we have the Right to Know! If you live in California, please call the Secretary of State's Elections Division staff at (916) 657-2166 to tell them you expect Secretary Debra Bowen to continue to update the vote count until the election is certified on Dec 14th.



Click here to download proof that Prop 37 has earned 6 million votes, share on Facebook and with your friends to demand openness and transparency in elections.
 
New Evidence of Voting Fraud with Prop 37 Initiative to Label GMO’s​

Link: http://theintelhub.com/2012/12/09/n...-fraud-with-prop-37-initiative-to-label-gmos/

theintelhub.com
December 9, 2012

After election day most of us heard that Prop 37, the initiative to label GMO foods failed to gather enough support to get a majority vote at the ballot box, and after that it more or less disappeared from the news altogether.

However, this announcement was made prematurely and all of the votes were never actually counted. Now, as the Dec 14 deadline for the turn in of the votes approaches, more evidence of voter fraud is coming to light.

According to Food Democracy Now:


“Right now the votes for Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods are still being counted. On Tuesday morning, Dec 4th, Prop 37 hit 6,004,628 votes on the California Secretary of State’s website, but this tally was quickly reversed within an hour of being publicized by Food Democracy Now!

Since November 6th, the vote count in California has been updated daily until December 4th, when the vote count hit 6 million for the first time. When contacted, the Secretary of State’s office stated there would be no further updates to the vote totals until Dec 14th when state law requires the election results to be certified. County elected officials only have until COB Dec 7th to submit final results so we need your help now!

At the same time, Food Democracy Now! has learned that a team of independent statisticians have detected “statistical anomalies” in the largest precincts of 9 counties, including Orange, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda and San Diego counties.”

Digital Journal explained the situation a bit more in depth:

“Here is where the worry arises. On election night, the California Secretary of State’s office called the election for the No side, declaring that Yes on 37 to label genetically engineered foods had failed to pass by a margin of 46.9% to 53.1%, with some 4.3 million Californians having been reported voting Yes on 37 by the next morning.

However, since that date the ballot proposition has slowly and steadily advanced both its vote total, and also the percentage of the total vote. As of Monday, December 3rd at 4:58 pm, the California Secretary of State’s office reported that Prop 37 had garnered 48.5% votes to the No side’s 51.5%, with 5,986,652 voting to Label GMOs and 6,365,236 Californians voting against.

The very next morning, according to the California Secretary of State’s website, the Yes on 37 campaign had received 6,004,628 votes and edged down to 48.4% of the vote total. The timestamp on the website showed December 4, 2012, 6:04 a.m. This was an important milestone, as the Yes on Prop 37 side had gained six million votes, a significant achievement. Food Democracy Now! immediately shared the good news via Twitter @food_democracy at 8:40 am PST. Then something strange happened. Less than one hour later. the California Secretary of State’s website no longer showed the 6 million vote total.”

The following screenshot was also posted, showing how the tally was changed on the official website:



The December 14th deadline for the count is likely to bring more fraud and shady activity on the part of local bureaucrats. As mentioned earlier, news of this unfinished count has never hit the mainstream, leaving many to think that this effort has already been lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top