Organic Bytes #387: Monsanto's Going Down, Safeway Fires Back, & Moyers on Ag-Gag Laws

Read PDF | Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate

Follow Us On Facebook Follow OCA on Twitter OCA on Pinterest Follow OCA on Twitter

ESSAY OF THE WEEK

Winning Our Hearts and Minds? Monsanto and Big Food Pull Out the Big Guns

Monsanto and Big Food are taking the battle for consumers' hearts and minds to the next level. And it's no coincidence that they're pulling out the big guns just as the Washington State I-522 campaign to label genetically modified organisms in food products is gaining steam.

Can industry front groups and slick public relations firms convince us that the products they're peddling are not only safe, but good for us? Will the millions they spend on websites and advertorials pay off?

You be the judge.

The freshly launched GMOAnswers.com is funded by the biotech industry, which claims it just "wants to talk." And the recently formed Alliance to Feed the Future, representing more than 50 multinational food, agribusiness and biotech companies, wants to give us the "real" scoop on our food system.

Read the essay

ACTION ALERT

Organic Eggs? Not If the USDA and FDA Can Help It!

Are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined to keep chickens penned up, and rob consumers of the right to real free-range organic eggs?

It would seem so. First, the USDA's National Organics Program refuses to enforce standards set by the National Organic Standards Board requiring organic farmers to allow their hens outdoors. Responding to complaints that organic farmers were violating the standards, the NOP said they have more "urgent" matters to deal with.

Now, the FDA wants to make it nearly impossible for organic farmers to raise free-range hens. Despite weak scientific evidence, the FDA says it's risky for organic farmers to let their hens come in contact with wild birds. So the FDA is proposing costly, redundant and onerous so-called "food safety" measures on organic farmers who let their hens outdoors.

The USDA and the FDA need to hear from us. Eggs from organic free-range hens raised outdoors are more nutritious than eggs from hens kept indoors and raised on exclusively on grain. Not to mention how much more the animals suffer from being penned up.

 

TAKE ACTION: Tell the USDA and FDA: Set Organic Chickens Free!

I-522 UPDATE

Leader of the Pack: GMA Tops List of NO on I-522 Donors

Who wants you to have the right to know whether or not your food has been genetically engineered or not? Leading organic and natural health companies. Consumer groups such as the OCA and the Alliance for Natural Health. Nonprofit watchdog groups. Thousands and thousands of organic and natural health consumers.
Who doesn't? The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and its dues-paying members. Monsanto. DuPont. Bayer Cropsciences. Dow Agrisciences.

So far the GMA is the largest donor to the NO on I-522 campaign, which wants desperately to defeat I-522, Washington's citizens' initiative to label GMOs. The GMA represents more than 300 corporations including Kraft, Kellogg's, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Hershey's, ConAgra, General Mills and a long list of other companies that want your money – but don't want you to know what they're selling you.

The GMA member roster also includes Starbucks, Target and Safeway, owner of the O Organicsâ„¢ brand. Which is why we hope you'll sign our petition asking the leaders of those companies to support I-522 and ditch the GMA.

 

See Who's Funding NO and YES on I-522 Campaigns

TAKE ACTION: Tell Safeway, Starbucks and Target: Stop bankrolling campaigns to defeat GMO Labeling!

SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF

You Rock!

You did it again. Thank you!

Thanks to almost 4,000 of you who contributed to our recent appeal for support for I-522, we raised the $150,000 we needed in order to receive a generous matching grant from Mercola.com.

We were all disappointed when we lost Prop 37, the GMO labeling initiative in California last year. But together, we rallied. Now we're more determined than ever to win this year in Washington State. And beyond.

I-522 is a must-win campaign. As the donations to the NO on I-522 campaign pour in from Big Food and the Biotech Bullies, we will keep pressuring the natural and organic companies who sat on the sidelines last year while you emptied your pockets to fight this battle.

 

In the meantime, we're grateful for your generous support and your unstoppable determination to win this battle. Thank you. From all of us.

Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)

Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Washington, Vermont and other states)

TRAITOR BOYCOTT

Naked Truth: Naked Juice Not So Natural

No wonder PepsiCo, owner of the Naked Juice brand, spent $2.5 million to defeat California's GMO labeling law last year. Turns out the Junk Food Giant isn't too fond of honest labeling, even when it comes to its so-called "all-natural" Naked Juice.

In a big win for consumers, PepsiCo has been ordered to pay $9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit. Why? Because the courts agreed that adding synthetic fiber material made by Agri-Giant Archer Daniels Midland to Naked Juice products equates to deliberately deceiving consumers.

And that's not all. The lawsuit accused Pepsi of adding a host of other questionable ingredients, including zinc oxide, ascorbic acid and calcium pantothenate, made from formaldehyde, a carcinogenic compound.

Pepsi denied the claim that Naked Juice contains GMOs. But the undeniable truth? Pepsi doesn't want you to know what's in Naked Juice, or any of its other products. And as a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is so far the top donor to campaign to defeat I-522, a GMO labeling initiative in Washington State, Pepsi is still working to keep you in the dark.

Learn more

TAKE ACTION: Tell Naked Juice to Clean up its Act and Support I-522, Washington State's GMO Labeling Initiative

ORGANIC INDEX 8.1.13

Gaining Ground: Organic and 'Natural' Grab 13% of All U.S. Grocery Sales

Maybe it's the high cost of healthcare. Or the fact that organic food just tastes better. But American consumers are increasingly willing to pay a premium price for foods and products that they believe are healthier, environmentally sustainable, and humanely produced.

Organic and "natural" products now constitute over 13% of U.S. grocery purchases. Sales of certified organic products are projected to reach approximately $35 billion in 2013, or 4.5% of total grocery sales. That number amounts to only half the sales of so-called "natural" products - uncertified, and routinely produced with pesticides, chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, GMOs, and sewage sludge – which are expected to exceed $70 billion in 2013.

Unfortunately many, if not most consumers are unclear about the qualitative difference between certified organic and most so-called "natural" products. Given this rampant mislabeling in the marketplace, if so-called "natural" products containing GMOs and synthetic chemicals and residues had to be truthfully labeled, organic sales would likely double within a short period of time. 

Get the facts on organics and "natural" here

ORGANIC TRANSITIONS

No Small Thing: Reversing Climate Change through Sustainable Agriculture and Biochar

For the past five years, OCA has been passionately talking and writing about how organic farming, ranching, and forestry practices can potentially reverse global warming and save us from climate catastrophe.

There were times when we thought we were preaching only to the choir. But now a growing number of leading food and environmental writers, including Michael Pollan and Mark Hertsgaard, are joining the chorus and educating the public on how we can use sustainable farming, ranching and biochar practices to exponentially increase plant photosynthesis and soil carbon sequestration on hundreds of millions of acres of farmland, pasture, and rangeland.

This Great Transition has the potential to bring our current greenhouse gas pollution down from our 400 ppm of CO2 to 350 ppm – the number scientists say we need to achieve if we're going to survive. If we can achieve this, we can stabilize our dangerously out-of-control global climate. And in the process, we'll dramatically increase soil fertility, biodiversity, and moisture retention.

As Pollan puts it, moving away from factory farms and industrial/GMO agriculture to organic no-till farming and rotational grazing  "gets us out of one of the worst aspects of environmental thinking - the zero sum idea that we can't feed ourselves and save the planet at the same time. It also raises our spirits about the challenges ahead, which is not a small thing."

Read Michael Pollan on agriculture and climate change

Read Mark Hertsgaard on how biochar, composting and biochar energy production can reverse global warming

LITTLE BYTES

Essential Reading for the Week

Consumer Alert: Fertilizer Industry's Arsenic-Tainted Fluoride Laced into Drinking Water of 150 Million Americans

Nasty Pesticide Broken Down by Probiotic Used In Culturing Food

Sacramento's Farm-to-Fork Food Bank Changes Lives

Study Shows High Levels of Arsenic in Water Near Fracked Gas Wells

Survey: Only 15% of Farmers would Eat GMO Food

Consumer Alert: Most Common Vitamins, Including Children's Vitamins, Found to Contain GMOs

 follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | OCA on Pinterest  | Donate

Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on web sites,print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!Organic Bytes is a publication of Organic Consumers Association6771 South Silver Hill Drive - Finland, MN 55603 - Phone: 218-226-4164 - Fax: 218-353-7652

Subscribe - Past Issues - PDFs

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.