Organic Bytes #366, February 7, 2013
Health, Justice and Sustainability News from the Organic Consumers Association
Edited by Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins
ESSAY OF THE WEEK
Forward on Climate: Cook Organic, Not the Planet!
If we're serious about heading off a climate crisis, we better start paying attention to what's on the end of our forks. As it turns out, factory farms are one of the biggest culprits in this whole climate change calamity.
On inauguration day, President Obama promised to " . . . respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." Empty words, or did he mean it? On February 17, OCA will march with nearly 80 other organizations in what promises to be the largest climate rally in history, Forward on Climate. We'll join hands and voices with thousands of others who will pressure Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and enact tough limits on carbon from our nation's dirty power plants.
But we'll bring our own message, too: Cook organic, not the planet! Because while new, green technologies have their place in solving the climate crisis, a simple tried-and-true technology to restore carbon to our soil and keep greenhouse gases out of our atmosphere has been right under our noses – and our feet – for centuries: climate-friendly organic farming.
More info on Forward on Climate http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=forwardonclimate
Sweet Revenge: Boycott Dagoba and Hershey's!
TAKE ACTION: Tell Hershey's: No Dagoba chocolate until you support GMO labeling! http://www.organicconsumers.org/ocaactions.cfm?actionnum=9504
Dagoba chocolate may be organic, but its parent company, Hershey's, is a loser by any standard. Hershey's spent more than a half million dollars to defeat Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling law. No wonder. The Hershey's kisses and chocolate bars sold here in the U.S. are loaded with cheap genetically modified beet sugar and genetically engineered soy lecithin. And where does the giant chocolate maker get its cacao? From regions where child labor and workers' rights abuses run rampant.
Hershey's cuts corners by using cheap GMO ingredients and exploiting little kids in impoverished countries so its CEO, John Bilbrey, can personally pocket millions - $10.6 million in 2011. But guess what? In the UK, where consumers have the right to know what's in their food because they've insisted on mandatory GMO labeling laws, Hershey's products are GMO-free. The company once said: "We took this decision based on our belief that customers in the UK do not currently wish to see GM ingredients in these products."
What about Hershey's customers here in the U.S.? Let them eat GMOs!
TAKE ACTION: Tell Hershey's: No Dagoba chocolate until you support GMO labeling! http://www.organicconsumers.org/ocaactions.cfm?actionnum=9504
Prop 37 Recount: How One County Clerk Killed It
Will we ever know if the majority of California voters really voted against an initiative that would have required mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? Probably not, according to a hot-off-the press in-depth analysis of the Prop 37 recount by Brad Friedman, author of The Brad Blog.
On Nov. 6, 2012, Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, was defeated by a narrow margin. Too narrow, according to election integrity experts who found numerous inconsistencies in the ballot counting process. Activists called for a recount. What followed next is a tale of how optical-scan ballot counting and corrupt election officials conspired to kill the recount, deprive citizens of due democratic process, and may well have cost the entire country the right to know what's in their food.
Read what happened to the Prop 37 recount http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26998.cfm
SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF
We'd Love to Get Money out of Politics
Really. We would. But until we do, we need your help. It was money - $46 million – that overcame the will of consumers in California last year and ultimately, though narrowly, defeated grassroots efforts to pass a major GMO labeling initiative that would almost certainly have guaranteed GMO labeling at the national level. It was money, or lack of it, that scuttled a recount of the Prop 37 vote, when election integrity experts cried foul. County election officials fought back by requiring unreasonably high, and as it turns out, arbitrary, fees for carrying out the recount.
And now, according to activists in New Mexico, money – in the form of paid lobbyists – has bought off state legislators to keep them from passing a statewide GMO labeling law.
Consumers, including thousands of you, from all corners of the country, opened your wallets to help the Prop 37 campaign. We didn't get the win, but we rallied millions of concerned consumers who will not walk away from this battle until we do win. And that wouldn't have happened without your support. Now, two new GMO labeling battles are looming, in Washington State and Vermont. We will get a win in one of these states, but we'll need your help to run successful campaigns. The OCA has already sent money to both state campaigns, and has pledged more. Your generous donation today will help us keep these campaigns strong so we can bring home a win. Thank you!
Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education) http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.cfm
Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Washington, Vermont and other states) http://organicconsumersfund.org/donate/
Now Look Who's Talking About Big Food and GMO Labeling!
A few weeks ago, OCA broke the news http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26864.cfm about a secret meeting in Washington D.C. between Walmart, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and other food giants and representatives of the FDA. The article almost slipped quietly by. But then, it grew legs.
Grist Magazine's Tom Laskaway was the first to pick up http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26956.cfm on it, in an article where he confirmed that the meeting took place, and filled in some more of the details. Then the New York Times fleshed out the story even further, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26982.cfm that nearly 20 major food companies attended the January 11 meeting and interviewing some of the key players involved. Michelle Simon, of Appetite for Profit followed with her analysis, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26997.cfm which focused on the OCA's cautionary note that, while it's great to see the junk food conglomerates break with Monsanto et al, we should be very very wary of any federal legislation written with input from the very industry that has been fighting tooth and nail against GMO labeling.
Have the junk food companies suddenly come over to our side? Are they hoping to write a federal, loophole-filled GMO labeling law? What will the FDA do? Stay tuned.
Read the original OCA article http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26864.cfm
Read the Grist article http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26956.cfm
Read the New York Times article http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26982.cfm
Read Michelle Simon's article http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26997.cfm
STATE GMO LABELING BATTLES
The Beat Goes On . . .Washington State and Vermont Advance GMO Laws
We may have oh-so-narrowly lost the GMO labeling battle in California, but the movement for mandatory GMO labeling is far from down and out. Two states – Washington and Vermont – are pushing forward, and from all accounts, the chances look good for victory in both.
Washington: Last week, Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman certified the 353,331 signatures turned in by the grassroots campaign behind I-522, The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. Next step? Legislators have three options. They can pass I-522 into law as is. They can take no action, which means the initiative will go directly to the voters in November 2013. Or they prepare their own alternative version of the bill, send both to the ballot in November, and let voters choose. I-522 has tremendous support already from legislators, farmers and the general public. Of course it helps the cause that the FDA wants to approve GMO "frankenfish" in a state where wild salmon is iconic.
Vermont: For the third time in the last three years Vermont legislators have introduced a bill to require mandatory labeling of GMOs. This time, H.112 has tri-partisan support from a third of the members of the Vermont House, including 50 Democrat, Progressive and Republican co-sponsors, plus the Chair of the Agriculture committee, Carolyn Partridge. Vermonters are determined to prevent a repeat of last year, when a similar bill was passed out of the House Agriculture Committee late in the session with a strong 9 to 1 vote, only to have the Governor scuttle it after Monsanto threatened to sue the state if it passed. Vermont has a long history of "firsts" when it comes to progressive legislation. We're counting on them to do it again!
More on Washington I-522 http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27008.cfm
More on Vermont http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27001.cfm
Have a Heart: Shop Responsibly This Valentine's Day!
Planning to treat someone special to chocolate and flowers next week? Choose wisely, and your gift could help make the whole world a better place.
More than 40 percent of the world's conventional chocolate is non-organic and non-Fair Trade. Most of it comes from the Ivory Coast, where enslaved children work under grueling conditions to line the pockets of executives and shareholders of big commercial chocolate companies, like Hershey's. And those pretty flowers? The folks at the Pesticide Action Network http://www.panna.org/ point out that commercial flowers, produced in Colombia and elsewhere, are the most toxic and heavily sprayed agricultural crops on Earth.
Visit our Valentine's Day page http://www.organicconsumers.org/valentines/index.cfm for a guide to Valentine's Day shopping, or to download an OCA Valentine's Day card and learn more about Fair Trade.
Essential Reading for the Week
Eating Smart When Dining Out
Nearly Half of All US Farms Now Have Superweeds
Countries Are Now Required to Phase Down Mercury Dental Amalgam Use
Hundreds Rally in NY: 'Not One Fracking Well'
Upping the Steaks: How Grass-Fed Beef is Reshaping Ag and Helping the Planet
Viral Gene in Genetically Engineered Foods Could Promote Disease
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)