Notifications
Clear all

The Sneaky Way Congress Wants to Help 'Big Food' Manipulate GMO Labels

Page 2 / 4
 
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24762670 no

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 1, 2015 6:35 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

Do you even read the abstracts? "Associated" is correlation. It ISO said more study is needed.

study

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 1, 2015 7:05 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

As I said, we will never agree on this subject.

You can choose to live next door to fields sprayed with pesticides if you wish since you deem them so safe. Those poor people in Argentina don't have the choice but to endure what they're exposed to and their doctors are seeing and experiencing a rise in cancers, tumors, birth defects, abnormalities, and malformations in their populations since they have been subjected over the years to the pesticides used in spraying those soybean fields. That's causation.
It is happening to those people. It is happening to the same kinds of people that these GMO chemical companies say they are supposed to be helping. The poor that have no voice and no choice.

My point is there is an major overuse/ abuse of pesticides in the world, today. At some point in time, there will be a price to pay.

My point is all products should be labeled so that people are aware
of what it is, exactly, they are eating, whether it be organic, GMO or otherwise.

My point is that there should be a reduction in the amounts of chemicals used to grow our food products and that we are subjected to in our environment.

It takes decades to ban products that have proven to be harmful to humans, our wildlife, our fresh water supplies and our earth. Then these companies get a slap on the wrist and go on to invent another toxic product to infest the world with.

This is my last comment on this subject.
Enjoy your GMO products and have a nice life.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 1, 2015 8:35 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

Anecdotes and sad stories are just those. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. We won't agree. That is fine. I'll put my faith in people like Norman Borlaug.. The man who saved a billion lives..

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 1, 2015 8:56 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk

Insecticides put world food supplies at risk, say scientists
Regulations on pesticides have failed to prevent poisoning of almost all habitats, international team of scientists concludes

Farmers used helicopter to insecticide and fertilize wheat crops in Henan province, China.

Farmers use helicopters to spray insecticide and fertilizer on wheat crops in Henan province, China. Photograph: TPG/Getty Images
Damian Carrington

The world’s most widely used insecticides have contaminated the environment across the planet so pervasively that global food production is at risk, according to a comprehensive scientific assessment of the chemicals’ impacts.

The researchers compare their impact with that reported in Silent Spring, the landmark 1962 book by Rachel Carson that revealed the decimation of birds and insects by the blanket use of DDT and other pesticides and led to the modern environmental movement.

Billions of dollars’ worth of the potent and long-lasting neurotoxins are sold every year but regulations have failed to prevent the poisoning of almost all habitats, the international team of scientists concluded in the most detailed study yet. As a result, they say, creatures essential to global food production – from bees to earthworms – are likely to be suffering grave harm and the chemicals must be phased out.

The new assessment analysed the risks associated with neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides on which farmers spend $2.6bn (£1.53bn) a year. Neonicotinoids are applied routinely rather than in response to pest attacks but the scientists highlight the “striking” lack of evidence that this leads to increased crop yields.

“The evidence is very clear. We are witnessing a threat to the productivity of our natural and farmed environment equivalent to that posed by organophosphates or DDT,” said Jean-Marc Bonmatin, of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, one of the 29 international researchers who conducted the four-year assessment. “Far from protecting food production, the use of neonicotinoid insecticides is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it.” He said the chemicals imperilled food supplies by harming bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world’s crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils which the world’s food requires in order to grow.

Systemic insecticides
Systemic insecticides. Photograph: /Guim
Professor Dave Goulson, at the University of Sussex, another member of the team, said: “It is astonishing we have learned so little. After Silent Spring revealed the unfortunate side-effects of those chemicals, there was a big backlash. But we seem to have gone back to exactly what we were doing in the 1950s. It is just history repeating itself. The pervasive nature of these chemicals mean they are found everywhere now.

“If all our soils are toxic, that should really worry us, as soil is crucial to food production."

The assessment, published on Tuesday, cites the chemicals as a key factor in the decline of bees, alongside the loss of flower-rich habitats meadows and disease. The insecticides harm bees’ ability to navigate and learn, damage their immune systems and cut colony growth. In worms, which provide a critical role in aerating soil, exposure to the chemicals affects their ability to tunnel.

Dragonflies, which eat mosquitoes, and other creatures that live in water are also suffering, with some studies showing that ditchwater has become so contaminated it could be used directly as a lice-control pesticide.

The report warned that loss of insects may be linked to major declines in the birds that feed on them, though it also notes that eating just a few insecticide-treated seeds would kill birds directly.

One of the last living male Dusky Seaside Sparrows is seen in this 1981 file photo while in captivity at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida. DDT pesticide spraying contributed to the extinction of this species since 1940.

One of the last living male dusky seaside sparrows is seen in this 1981 file photo while in captivity at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida. DDT pesticide spraying since the 1940s contributed to the extinction of this species.
Photograph: Nathan Benn/Corbis

“Overall, a compelling body of evidence has accumulated that clearly demonstrates that the wide-scale use of these persistent, water-soluble chemicals is having widespread, chronic impacts upon global biodiversity and is likely to be having major negative effects on ecosystem services such as pollination that are vital to food security,” the study concluded.

The report is being published as a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research and was funded by a charitable foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos.

The EU, opposed by the British government and the National Farmers Union, has already imposed a temporary three-year moratorium on the use of some neonicotinoids on some crops. This month US president Barack Obama ordered an urgent assessment of the impact of neonicotinoids on bees. But the insecticides are used all over the world on crops, as well as flea treatments in cats and dogs and to protect timber from termites.

However, the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers, criticised the report. Nick von Westenholz, chief executive of the CPA, said: “It is a selective review of existing studies which highlighted worst-case scenarios, largely produced under laboratory conditions. As such, the publication does not represent a robust assessment of the safety of systemic pesticides under realistic conditions of use.”

Von Westenholz added: “Importantly, they have failed or neglected to look at the broad benefits provided by this technology and the fact that by maximising yields from land already under cultivation, more wild spaces are preserved for biodiversity. The crop protection industry takes its responsibility towards pollinators seriously. We recognise the vital role pollinators play in global food production.”

A Bulgarian beekeeper grabs dead bees during a demonstration in Sofia to call for a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in April. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images

The new report, called the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticides, analysed every peer-reviewed scientific paper on neonicotinoids and another insecticide called fipronil since they were first used in the mid-1990s. These chemicals are different from other pesticides because, instead of being sprayed over crops, they are usually used to treat seeds. This means they are taken up by every part of the growing plant, including roots, leaves, pollen and nectar, providing multiple ways for other creatures to be exposed.

The scientists found that the use of the insecticides shows a “rapid increase” over the past decade and that the slow breakdown of the compounds and their ability to be washed off fields in water has led to “large-scale contamination”. The team states that current rules on use have failed to prevent dangerous levels building up in the environment.

Almost as concerning as what is known about neonicotinoids is what is not known, the researchers said. Most countries have no public data on the quantities or locations of the systemic pesticides being applied. The testing demanded by regulators to date has not determined the long-term effect of sub-lethal doses, nor has it assessed the impact of the combined impact of the cocktail of many pesticides encountered in most fields. The toxicity of neonicotinoids has only been established for very few of the species known to be exposed. For example, just four of the 25,000 known species of bee have been assessed. There is virtually no data on effects on reptiles or mammals.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 11, 2015 8:51 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

GMO FACTS

Frequently Asked Questions

What are GMOs?
GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.
In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.

Are GMOs labeled?
Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the powerful biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public. In the absence of mandatory labeling, the Non-GMO Project was created to give consumers the informed choice they deserve.

Where does the Non-GMO Project come in?
The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization with a mission of protecting the non-GMO food supply and giving consumers an informed choice. We offer North America’s ONLY third party verification for products produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance (for more info, click here). Our strategy is to empower consumers to make change through the marketplace. If people stop buying GMOs, companies will stop using them and farmers will stop growing them.

Do Americans want non-GMO foods and supplements?
Polls consistently show that a significant majority of North Americans would like to be able to tell if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs (a 2012 Mellman Group poll found that 91% of American consumers wanted GMOs labeled). And, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53% of consumers said they would not buy food that has been genetically modified. The Non-GMO Project’s seal for verified products will, for the first time, give the public an opportunity to make an informed choice when it comes to GMOs.

How common are GMOs?
In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food. Click here for a current list of GMO risk crops.

Why does the Non-GMO Project verify products that have a low risk of containing GMOs?
Some ingredients that seem low-risk may have less-visible high-risk ingredients. Take, for example, dried fruit. Raisins and similar fruit are sometimes packed with a small quantity of oil to keep them moist. This oil, when used, is sometimes high-GMO-risk. As such, it is critical that we do take the time to look carefully at ingredient spec sheets during the verification process, to ensure that risks like this are effectively mitigated, even in apparently low-risk products.

Contamination incidents have occurred with seemingly “low-risk” products (rice, starling corn, flax). Non-GMO Project Verification supports manufacturers in being able to quickly and proactively respond to unexpected contamination issues.

Verifying only high-risk products puts a heavy burden on consumers to know what products are at risk of containing GMOs. Many people, even in the world of Natural Foods, don’t know what a GMO is, let alone which crops and processed ingredients are high-risk. As such, labeling only products that contain high-risk ingredients could give an unfair competitive advantage to products that contain ingredients containing corn, soy, etc. Taking the cereal aisle for our example, if we verified only high-risk products, a shopper might see the seal on a box of verified corn flakes, but not on the wheat-based cereal box next to them, produced with the same high standards by the same company. This could leave them thinking the corn flakes were non-GMO, but that they should avoid the wheat product, even though there’s no GMO wheat on the market. Given the lack of understanding of the issue, this presents some serious issues.

Through verifying low-risk products, the Non-GMO Project’s work builds consumer interest and industry investment in Non-GMO, even for crops that aren’t genetically engineered yet. Biotech is constantly working to patent and commercialize new organisms (salmon, apples, etc.), and the more companies that have committed to Non-GMO production, the more resistance these new developments will see prior to release.

What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?
Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

How do GMOs affect farmers?
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

How can I avoid GMOs?
Choose food and products that are Non-GMO Project Verified! Click here to see a complete list.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

Article link: http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 23, 2015 1:17 am
Pdmargie
(@Pdmargie)
Advanced Member

I'm all for safe food, but, realistically, humans have been genetically modifying crops since the beginning of time,....safely, usually. If you don't know where modern corn came from, look up teosinte.

http://segfault.org/writing/segfault.org/Teosinte.html

Genetically Modified Teosinte on the Loose

Sinister "Frankenfood" Could Manifest Fangs, Other Features Previously Seen Only in Metaphorical Representations

by Leonard Richardson

Published on segfault.org 12/15/2000

Original images have been replaced

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that an a genetically modified strain of the teosinte grass had been released into commercial channels from several points throughout the American Midwest. Although the warning did not state the cause of the release or the parties responsible, it is believed that the release was deliberate, the amount unprecedented, and that the pollution of our nation's teosinte supply is still ongoing.

Evil genetically modified teosinte Natural, wholesome teosinte
Products labelled as containing teosinte may actually contain genetically modified teosinte if purchased within the past 7000 years, the warning states. Such products include teosinte chips, can teosinte kernels, and high fructose teosinte syrup. Teosinte purchased "on-the-stalk" may also have been replaced with the genetically modified strain.

Although the precise origin of the demon seed remains a mystery, it is widely believed that scientists, overcome by hubris, created the deformed grain in order to "feed people". However, strong indications also point to the nefarious, profit-driven schemes of early agrarian peoples. Whatever the case, one thing is clear: man has bent nature to his will, and disaster is sure to follow. (See previous story, poxvirus variola: Mankind Will Pay Dearly For its Destruction).

Fortunately for consumers, the genetically modified species of the grass bears significant morphological differences from its natural cousin, and should be easy to spot. Note the immense height of the modified plant, the presence of more than ten kernels on an ear, the ungodly length of the sexual apparatus or "silk". These identifying features should help you keep genetically modified teosinte out of your diet.

In a related story, accusations continue to fly over the accidental inclusion of genetically modified genetically modified teosinte into a shipment of regular genetically modified teosinte.

This document (source) is part of Crummy, the webspace of Leonard Richardson (contact information). It was last modified on Wednesday, January 24 2007, 1549 Nowhere Standard Time and last built on Thursday, April 23 2015, 1054 Nowhere Standard Time.

Crummy is © 1996-2015 Leonard Richardson. Unless otherwise noted, all text licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Document tree:

http://www.crummy.com/
writing/
segfault.org/
Teosinte.html
Site Search:

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 9:07 am
Pdmargie
(@Pdmargie)
Advanced Member

Modern corn (maize) was intentionally "developed" by early agrarian societies in Mexico. The original plant, Teosinte, was an annual grass meaning it propagated naturally. It was genetically modified through hundreds or thousands of generations by selectively breeding individual plants with more desirable characteristics. Now it is known as Maize (corn) which is an annual plant (cannot reproduce naturally without human intervention). strains of "natural" corn are patented and sold to farmers every year to plant in their fields. Most corn grown cannot act as seed corn for next season. The kernels are not able to be planted and grown. New viable corn "seeds" must be purchased by farmers every year. GMO's have been part of the human diet for THOUSANDS of years. Can GMO's be made dangerous, sure,.....you can breed a tomatoe that is full of cyanide, but why would a company do that??? Stay vigilant, but do not condemn all GMO's just because they are GMO's. We've all been eating them our whole lives,....so did our ancestors. : )

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 9:37 am
Pdmargie
(@Pdmargie)
Advanced Member

As an interesting aside,......genetically modified (created) bacteria are used extensively in the pharmaceutical industry. The genes of the ubiquitous E. Coli bacteria where manipulated in such a way that the bacteria produces a precise replica of human insulin for diabetics. In the old days, insulin had to be isolated from porcine (pig) pancreas'. It was similar to but not identical to human insulin and had potential side effects,.....especially to those diabetics allergic to pork. I've never heard of anyone complaining about that GMO : )

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 9:55 am
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert

https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/world%E2%80%99s-first-public-testing-monsanto%E2%80%99s-glyphosate-begins-today

alana, i thought you might find this interesting

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 5:12 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

I suspect their findings will be.... CONFIRMATION BIAS.

What is truly interesting is GMOs occur naturally then we selective breed based on GM traits

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421084204.htm

Time for a new boogeyman

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 6:20 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Pesticides 101 - A Primer

What are pesticides?

What is the "Pesticide Treadmill"?

Which rules govern pesticide use?

How much exposure do we face?

What are pesticides?
Insecticides (bug killers), herbicides (weed killers), and fungicides (fungus killers) are all pesticides; so are rodenticides and antimicrobials. Pesticides come in spray cans and crop dusters, in household cleaners, hand soaps and swimming pools.

Insecticides are generally the most acutely (immediately) toxic. Many are designed to attack an insect's brain and nervous system, which can mean they have neurotoxic effects in humans as well. Herbicides are more widely used (RoundUp and atrazine are the two most used pesticides in the world) and present chronic exposure risks, such as cancer and reproductive harm. Fungicides are also used in large amounts; some are more benign, some are not.

Pesticides are also sometimes broken down into chemical classes and modes of action (e.g. fumigants are pesticides applied as gases to "sterilize" soil, and systemics work their way through a plant's tissue after being taken up at the root). Major chemical classes include: carbamates, organochlorines and organophosphates (mostly developed 70 or more years ago for chemical warfare); and newer classes including pyrethroids and neonicitinoids, synthesized to mimic nature's pest protection. For more, see our specific pesticides resource page.

What is the "Pesticide Treadmill"?
Also referred to as the "pesticide trap." Farmers get caught on the treadmill as they are forced to use more and more — and increasingly toxic — chemicals to control insects and weeds that develop resistance to pesticides. As "superbugs" and "superweeds" develop, a farmer will spend more on pesticides each year just to keep crop loss from pests at a standard rate.

Pesticide resistance is increasing. In the 1940s, U.S. farmers lost 7% of their crops to pests. Since the 1980s, loss has increased to 13%, even though more pesticides are being used. Between 500 and 1000 insect and weed species have developed pesticide resistance since 1945. "Pigweed" has developed resistance to RoundUp, for instance, and grows with such uncontrollable vigor in southern cotton fields that farmers report it can "stop a combine in its tracks."

Rachel Carson predicted the phenomenon in her 1962 book Silent Spring.

Which rules govern pesticide use?
Internationally, pesticides are regulated through two treaties that PAN played a formative role in creating. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs treaty) and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC treaty). The POPs treaty addresses toxins that persist, move around the world on wind and water, and bioaccumulate (DDT, for example), while Rotterdam gives countries the right to refuse the import of highly hazardous toxins. PIC attempts to redress the dumping of obsolete or banned pesticides on the developing world. (While only 25% of global pesticide use takes place in developing countries, 99% of acute pesticide-related fatalities occur there.)

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary authority to register and regulate pesticides, authorized by several federal laws including the:

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — allows EPA to register pesticides using risk/benefit standards (how much risk is balanced by how much benefit?);
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) — aims to increase protection for children and infants, setting tolerances (maximum residues on food);
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) — amends the previous laws by establishing a single safety standard for tolerances — not risk/benefit — to increase protection of children from aggregate exposures (dietary, water and residential); adds a 10-fold safety factor and requires ongoing review of registrations; and the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 — requires that pesticides that will harm these species will not be registered.
Some states have additional, stricter rules restricting pesticide use.

How much exposure do we face?

It depends on where you live and what you do.

Each year, an estimated 1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to U.S. farms, forests, lawns and golf courses. More than 17,000 pesticide products are currently on the market.

Pesticide applicators, farmers and farm workers, and communities near farms are often most at risk, but studies by the Centers for Disease Control show that all of us carry pesticides in our bodies. Golf courses use pesticides heavily, so do some schools and parks. Consumers also face pesticide exposure through food and water residues. For instance, atrazine is found in 94% of U.S. drinking water tested by the USDA.

There is another way. Agroecology is the science behind sustainable farming. This powerful approach combines scientific inquiry with place-based knowledge and experimentation, emphasizing approaches that are knowledge-intensive, low cost, ecologically sound and practical.

Home use of pesticides — which on a per acre basis outpaces use on farms by a ratio of 10 to 1 — puts families across the North America at unnecessary risk.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 23, 2015 8:11 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Got Glyphosate? Find Out!

Your doctor won’t test you to see if it’s in your body. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) won’t test your food for it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) won’t test your water for it, and neither will your local water testing company.

Now, you can take matters into your own hands.

The Feed The World project, launched today, offers the first public glyphosate testing program for the general public. OCA has joined with Feed The World to promote the testing, worldwide.

For the first time, validated public LC/MS/MS glyphosate testing for urine, water and soon, breast milk, is being offered to anyone who wants to know if their drinking water contains glyphosate, or if the world’s most widely used herbicide, recently declared by the World Health Organization a probable carcinogen, is present in their urine or breast milk.

For decades, Monsanto has falsely claimed that glyphosate is “safe.” Scientists on Monsanto’s dole dutifully fell in line with the corporate propaganda. Scientists who disagreed were attacked. And even though in 1985, the EPA said glyphosate causes cancer, the agency later reversed its decision and, since then, every government agency charged with serving the public has instead served Monsanto.

It will be up to the public to get glyphosate banned, permanently. And once we, as consumers and citizens, mothers, fathers and grandparents, realize that we are personally affected, more of us will rise up. More of us will insist on change.

The testing is not free. But it’s priced at the lowest amount possible, an amount that allows for high-quality, scientifically sound testing while encouraging the participation of as many people as possible. This testing, previously unavailable, could be the answer to ridding the world of glyphosate. We hope you can participate, and will share this news far and wide.

Order glyphosate testing
http://feedtheworld.info/glyphosate-testing-test-yourself/?ngo=Organic+Consumers+Association+(OCA)

Read the OCA press release
https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/world%E2%80%99s-first-public-testing-monsanto%E2%80%99s-glyphosate-begins-today

Read the Feed The World Press release
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/world%E2%80%99s-first-validated-public-testing-set-increase-pressure-ban-glyphosate

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 23, 2015 8:17 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

LOL. A study in confirmation bias and with ZERO scientific significance. Hi Alana! 😉

Got Glyphosate? Find Out!

Your doctor won’t test you to see if it’s in your body. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) won’t test your food for it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) won’t test your water for it, and neither will your local water testing company.

Now, you can take matters into your own hands.

The Feed The World project, launched today, offers the first public glyphosate testing program for the general public. OCA has joined with Feed The World to promote the testing, worldwide.

For the first time, validated public LC/MS/MS glyphosate testing for urine, water and soon, breast milk, is being offered to anyone who wants to know if their drinking water contains glyphosate, or if the world’s most widely used herbicide, recently declared by the World Health Organization a probable carcinogen, is present in their urine or breast milk.

For decades, Monsanto has falsely claimed that glyphosate is “safe.” Scientists on Monsanto’s dole dutifully fell in line with the corporate propaganda. Scientists who disagreed were attacked. And even though in 1985, the EPA said glyphosate causes cancer, the agency later reversed its decision and, since then, every government agency charged with serving the public has instead served Monsanto.

It will be up to the public to get glyphosate banned, permanently. And once we, as consumers and citizens, mothers, fathers and grandparents, realize that we are personally affected, more of us will rise up. More of us will insist on change.

The testing is not free. But it’s priced at the lowest amount possible, an amount that allows for high-quality, scientifically sound testing while encouraging the participation of as many people as possible. This testing, previously unavailable, could be the answer to ridding the world of glyphosate. We hope you can participate, and will share this news far and wide.

Order glyphosate testing
http://feedtheworld.info/glyphosate-testing-test-yourself/?ngo=Organic+Consumers+Association+(OCA)

Read the OCA press release
https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/world%E2%80%99s-first-public-testing-monsanto%E2%80%99s-glyphosate-begins-today

Read the Feed The World Press release
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/world%E2%80%99s-first-validated-public-testing-set-increase-pressure-ban-glyphosate/blockquote >

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 9:05 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

Only $119 per test? OMG the organic marketing ploy never ends!

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 23, 2015 9:14 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

That's your concern? The cost?
A nice dinner out can cost more than that!

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 24, 2015 1:29 am
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

The cost is just another way they stick you. Glyphosate has a really short half life as well. Who is making sure this test is above board? I have a baby. A nice dinner to me is taco night at Hull Bay. I hope their tortillas are full of GMOs. I'll ask next Monday. 😉

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 24, 2015 1:39 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

I guess Monsanto and other GMO seed suppliers don't stick it to
the farmers planting their crops having them continuously have to
buy seeds or get sued plus purchase inordinate amounts of pesticides.

Just saying!*-)

Here, watch this and chill, sparty.

http://playingforchange.com/episodes/what-a-wonderful-world/

After all is said and done, we leave a legacy for our children's children's children (Moody Blues, anyone?) so should it not be the best we can?

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 24, 2015 1:46 am
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

I guess Monsanto and other GMO seed suppliers don't stick it to
the farmers planting their crops having them continuously have to
buy seeds or get sued plus purchase inordinate amounts of pesticides.

Just saying!*-)

No one forces anyone to buy seeds from specific companies. Proprietary GM seeds make up under 25% of seeds sold. When you do CHOOSE to buy seeds you are required to follow the terms. It's a business agreement. Farmers are not stupid. They are going to purchase seeds which they can get maximum yields from. GM products lessen the OVERALL pesticide load, even if glyphosate use is up.

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 24, 2015 1:51 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

In case you missed it:

Here, watch this and chill, sparty.

[playingforchange.com]

After all is said and done, we leave a legacy for our children's children's children (Moody Blues, anyone?) so should it not be the best we can?

Pesticide overload on our planet is not the way to go!

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 24, 2015 1:57 am
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

In case you missed it:

Here, watch this and chill, sparty.

[playingforchange.com]

After all is said and done, we leave a legacy for our children's children's children (Moody Blues, anyone?) so should it not be the best we can?

Pesticide overload on our planet is not the way to go!

While I agree pesticide use is an ongoing concern, that concern needs to be put in balance with feeding 7 billion mouths. No one has the "right" technology for that right now. I will ere on side of starving humans until we do figure that out. I'm always chilled btw. Just because I enjoy debate does not make me angry.

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 24, 2015 2:02 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Glad we agree!

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 24, 2015 2:06 am
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

OCA Applauds Ruling by Federal Judge in Favor of Vermont GMO Labeling Law, Moves Forward to Enact GMO Labeling in Maine

Augusta, Maine - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) issued this statement today in response to yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge in Vermont clearing the way for the state’s GMO labeling law to take effect in July 2016:

“This landmark ruling not only paves the way for Vermont’s GMO labeling law to take effect on schedule, July 1, 2016, but more importantly it signals that the courts agree that states have a constitutional right to pass GMO labeling laws,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association.

“This ruling also bodes well for GMO labeling bills that are moving through other state legislatures, including Maine, where a public hearing on Maine’s LD 991 is scheduled for April 30,” Cummins said.

LD 991 would remove the stipulation from the Maine’s existing GMO labeling law, passed in 2013, that requires four additional contiguous states to also pass similar laws, before Maine’s law can be enacted. Some Maine lawmakers have suggested that it’s too soon to remove that stipulation, and that the legislature should instead wait until a ruling on the constitutionality of Vermont’s law.

Yesterday, Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, issued an 84-page ruling that denied the effort by the food industry, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the International Dairy Foods Association, to block implementation of Vermont’s H.112.

According to news reports, a lawyer with the Vermont state attorney general's office, said key aspects of Reiss’s ruling appear favorable to the state, in particular the argument that the lowest level of scrutiny applies to the law, requiring the state to only show that the genetic engineering label is “reasonably related” to the state’s interests.

“While Vermont’s legal battle is not yet over, this ruling represents a tremendous victory for not only the citizens of Vermont, but the entire GMO labeling movement,” Cummins said.

The OCA was a key player in GMO labeling initiatives in California (2012), Washington State (2013) and Oregon (2014), in addition to providing financial and staff resources for several years up until the passage of Vermont’s H.112.

Currently, the OCA is supporting LD 991 in Maine, as well as efforts to pass GMO labeling laws in other New England states, including Massachusetts.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/04/28/oca-applauds-ruling-federal-judge-favor-vermont-gmo-labeling-law-moves-forward

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 28, 2015 8:35 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

From the Environmental Defense Fund:

Moments ago, on bipartisan vote of 15-5, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act out of committee.

The vote came one day after the bill's sponsors, Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), secured the backing of three key Democrats on the committee Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Cory Booker (NJ)—after intense weekend negotiations resulted in key amendments to strengthen the bill.

This is a huge step in our fight to reform the 40-year old Toxic Substances Control Act, a law so dated and flawed that it provides no real protection from the toxic chemicals all around us.

While the Lautenberg Act already created new authorities and mandates for EPA to review new and existing chemicals, the compromise secured over the weekend strengthens more than a dozen technical details.

These include several provisions to preserve key authorities of states to regulate chemicals through deadlines and waiver provisions. The agreement also clarifies that states may co-enforce federal restrictions on chemicals.

Some of the other key areas improved through compromise include:

Making clear that all state chemical disclosure laws and clean air and clean water laws are permanently protected from preemption. Streamlining the process for EPA to regulate chemicals in finished products, such as formaldehyde-laden flooring. Providing checks on chemicals designated as "low-priority" to avoid misuse of the category and allowing 90 days of public comment for all chemical listing decisions.

The bill is now ready to move to the Senate floor. Meanwhile, we expect the House to take up bi-partisan legislation in the coming weeks, and will keep you posted.

It's been 40 long years. But thanks to your continued activism and support, we are closer than we've ever been to reforming the badly broken Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and finally bringing our chemical safety protections into the 21st century.

Thank you for all you do,

Heather Shelby Action Network Manager

EDF Action 1875Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009 (800) 684-3322

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : April 28, 2015 8:49 pm
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member

Actually it was not a complete victory for GMO labeling. While ruling in favor of labels on one count the judge also ruled against on another which means science will be on trial. I like my sides' chances.

ReplyQuote
Posted : April 28, 2015 10:02 pm
Page 2 / 4
Close Menu