Are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a threat to organic agriculture? Are they dangerous when consumed? Do they lead to higher use of chemical herbicides and pesticides? And why aren’t GMOs labeled so we know which foods are made with them? We find and discuss the latest news on this critical issue.
Even as big, out-of-state corporate money triumphs, the struggle to spread the truth about GMOs continues.
Those of us who live one time zone later than Washington State woke up this morning to disappointing news: I-522, the Washington State initiative to label foods containing genetically-modified ingredients is going down to defeat and by a sizable margin. While votes are still being counted as of this writing, it appears that the difference won’t be made up. At one point in September, polls showed the initiative was ahead by 45%. How did it end up losing by 10%? (more…)
The voting is on in Washington (tomorrow is election day there) and it’s time to take a last look at I-522, the GMO labeling initiative, before the results are decided. Final results in fund raising? The No forces have raised $22 million shattering the all time record. Meanwhile, funds raised in support of the measure total $6.8 million, not a bad take in a race like this. But then look who they’re up against.
Surprisingly, not all the big corporate donors that contributed to defeat the California initiative have dumped money into Washington. Speculation is that some of the corporations who have healthy, natural product lines don’t want to be seen on the wrong side of this issue, like Lever Bros. who now owns Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. (more…)
Corporate Money, Deceit Threaten Washington’s Initiative 522
You friendly Plant Natural blogger likes to remain cheerful! upbeat! and optimistic! Today? Not so much and with good reason. A recent public opinion poll in Washington State shows that support of the GMO Labeling Initiative that would require labeling of foods containing genetically-modified ingredients has changed a negative 41% since the big-money interest ads attacking the initiative were rolled out in September. The momentum connected to such a swing suggests that the initiative, still favored by plus 4% of the public, is in danger of being defeated. The initiative enjoyed a 45% lead just six weeks ago. (more…)
The Grocery Manufacturers Association has given $5 million to the No-on-522 campaign, the Washington State initiative that would require labeling of GMO containing products. The no forces now have a whopping $17.168 million to unleash against consumers’ right to know. It’s the largest sum ever gathered in the state to fight a citizen’s initiative. The previous record — $16.9 million — was raised by the American Beverage Association to fight a small tax that was to be levied on soda pop. The money raised would have been used to prevent cuts to education. That measure was voted down.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association has been accused in state court of laundering money on behalf of some major food producers. Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestle, Heinz, and Campbells all gave big amounts to fight the California labeling initiative. (more…)
We’ve all read the news about how the pro-labeling forces in the Washington State GMO labeling initiative are being outspent in a huge way by the few corporations fighting to protect their obscene profits. Now, with just a month to go ahead of the vote, we’re getting a clear look at the anti-labeling’s tactics: lies, smears, and distortions.
This comes as no surprise. We saw what happened in California. The pro-labeling forces were outspent five-to-one and then narrowly lost the vote. Many of the television, print and radio ads urging voters to defeat the initiative used statistics and predictions arrived at by their own agencies, featured “experts” with strong ties to the corporations that promote GMOs, and, well, out-and-out falsehoods. Guess what? The moneyed interests fighting Washington State’s Initiative 522 are recycling some of the same ads, the same smears, that were used in California. Even their logo is almost an exact copy of the one used in California. (more…)
The Farmer Assurance Provision under Sec. 735 of the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill, otherwise known as “The Monsanto Protection Act” won’t be renewed. The Senate bill to keep the government funded has dropped the vastly unpopular provision that was quietly added to another spending bill in March. The rider, which shielded sellers of genetically modified seed from legal action when GMO seed causes harm to human health or damage to crops of conventional farmers, was set to expire September 30.
House Republicans earlier this month had reinserted the provision in their continuing resolution that would have extended the rider that held Monsanto free of responsibility from any harm their genetically modified products would cause. But the Senate has stripped the provision from its bill. (more…)
We’ve often argued against “biotech” or genetically modified crops and the accompanying use of glyphosate herbicide — trade name Roundup — because of its effects on human health, sustainability, and its culpability in creating a new class of glyphosate-resistant “superweeds” that are spreading across America’s farm country. Now comes word that Roundup is killing not just weeds but the very soil in which we grow our crops.
This article in The New York Times explains the negative effects glyphosate has on soil, effects that include compaction and resultant runoff, the killing of beneficial microbes and bacteria, and the exhaustion of necessary minerals and other nutrients that plants require.
The article also shows how nearby use of Roundup affects farmers not using the “Roundup Ready” system of growing GMO crops coupled with the spraying of glyphosate. One farmer describes how he loses corn every time his neighbor sprays Roundup and the herbicide drifts onto his conventionally grown corn. Worse, his neighbor’s fields have become so compacted that every time it rains, Roundup-laden runoff floods his conventional crops. “Anything you put on the land affects the chemistry and biology of the land, and that’s a powerful pesticide,” the farmer is quoted as saying. (more…)
Scientific American, the mass-market monthly magazine, has created a stir with its full-out recommendation that food products containing ingredients with genetically-modified plant sources NOT be labeled (really?). An earlier article from this summer’s food issue (subscription required, brief only) argued that GMOs have been proven safe; end of discussion. Let’s ask again . . . really?
Both articles call into question Scientific American‘s supposed objectivity. Narrowly focused on just bits and pieces of the issues, the magazine seems to have bought in fully to the corporate, pro-GMO arguments while ignoring the impacts raising genetically-modified plants have on plant diversity, the parallel uses of pesticides and herbicides required by GMO plants, and the threats posed to the freedom of independent, small American farms. Worse, its seems to white wash recent scientific evidence that some GMOs have proven harmful to the health of livestock and humans. What gives?
We can only hope that somewhere a motivated and brave investigative journalist is looking into any connection the author of the article or “the editors” who wrote the opinion piece masquerading as fact about labeling GMOs to the corporations who champion and profit from the spread of GMOs. The pieces sure take the company line in support of the questionable technology to heart, sometimes even word for word. We can’t help but be suspicious. (more…)
Corporate farming has disrupted an independent economic model and a way of life that was common just a few generations ago. Things were different when America’s farming economy was based on countless small, independent producers who then sold their products at rural cooperatives or directly to markets. Today, a few large food producers including Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Tyson, and a few large (mostly) chemical companies, including Dow Agro Sciences, Cargill and, yes, Monsanto, have a corner not only on our food supplies but the products used to raise them. This consolidation of our farm and food supplies creates huge problems, not just in this country, but world wide.
In the last few years, we’ve seen a reversal of this trend with independent, often organic farmers not only raising healthy food but being good stewards of the land. Yet the acreage involved is still miniscule compared to the vast miles of commercial farmland in the midwest, the south, and in California, where big corporate agriculture has a grip. (more…)
. . . or buy them from your small, local organic farmer. This article on efforts to produce a tastier commercial tomato is, frankly, sad. We all know the problem with grocery store tomatoes (PDF): they’re bland if not completely tasteless. Compare them to the most mediocre tomato grown in someone’s back yard and that mediocre tomato shines by comparison. Compare them to any decent, heirloom tomato from your garden or a small, local, organic farmer and, well, there’s no comparison.
Not only do homegrown and small farm organic tomatoes taste better than commercial tomatoes, they have more nutrition.
So you have to feel bemused if not sorry for professor Harry Klee at the University of Florida’s Institute for Plant Innovation program. Sure, his goals are admirable: he’s trying to “build” a better supermarket tomato. That means more flavor. (more…)