Christian? Six Ways You Can Help Bust Biotech

Is the following Christian?

Six Ways You Can Help Bust Biotech

  • By Ronnie Cummins
    Organic Consumers Association, September 18, 2013

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

After decades of misleading consumers; bullying farmers; buying off politicians, regulatory officials and scientists; and spreading its toxic chemicals and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on 420 million acres across the globe, once-mighty Monsanto and the biotech industry find themselves on the defensive.

Battered by mounting scientific evidence that Roundup-Ready (glyphosate), Bt-spliced, and neonicotinoid-coated crops are damaging public health, animals, bees and the environment, and unnerved by a rapidly growing U.S. and global anti-GMO movement, Monsanto and its minions recently have been forced to dump another $10 million into a campaign in Washington State, in a frantic attempt to stop voters from passing I-522. I-522 is a GMO labeling initiative that if passed on November 5, will likely mark the beginning of the end of GMO foods in North America.

The global anti-GMO, pro-organic grassroots are finally reaching critical mass. Maybe it’s thanks to the education and media campaigns launched by so many organizations, including the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).  Or perhaps it’s the fact that so many moms are tired of the health threats to their kids. Or all of the above.

Either way, consumers are taking the Biotech Bully by the horns and demanding that manufacturers, retailers and politicians heed consumers’ demands for truth and transparency in labeling. We are definitely making progress. But now is the time to step up the pressure, not back off and relax.

Here are six steps every consumer can take to help bust the Biotech Behemoth.

Support Washington State’s I-522 Initiative to Label GMOs

Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and Big Food understand that the most critical GMO labeling law battle will be lost or won on November 5. That’s when Washington State voters will decide on I-522, a ballot initiative that if passed will require mandatory labeling of GMOs in food products sold in retail stores. If Washington voters pass I-522, GMO-tainted foods, in most cases, will be forced off the market in North America. Our GMO Right to Know forces are way ahead in the polls and have already raised $5 million. If we can raise another $1 million - $2 million (20,000 - 40,000 donations of approximately $50 each), we will have enough money for heavy TV and radio advertising.

I-522 is a key battle, one that will affect consumers in all 50 states. If we all pitch in, we can raise enough money to win this one. Please make a donation today.

In addition to donating to the campaign, you can also help by volunteering for the national phone bank. If we have 10,000 - 20,000 volunteers each calling 50-100 “swing” voters, on top of the major advertising and direct mail push for Yes on I-522, we can almost guarantee our victory.

Get involved in your state campaign to label GMOs

GMO Right to Know and GMO-Free movements are working to craft and pass mandatory GMO labeling legislation in more than 35 states. Find a movement in your state and get involved.

Boycott GMO and factory-farmed foods

One of the best ways to bring down Monsanto is to stop buying GMO products. Without labels on GMO foods, the only way to avoid them is to buy USDA-certified organic foods, or avoid any foods containing canola, soy, corn or sugar beets, as they are most likely GMO. It also helps to grow as many of your own vegetables as possible, using organic, non-GMO seeds. And because nearly 80 percent of GMO crops are fed to animals in factory farms, by boycotting meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), you can help dry up the market for Monsanto’s seeds.

Boycott the ‘Traitor Brands’

As a consumer, you have more power than you realize. One way to exercise that power is to send a strong message to the brands that have supported campaigns to kill GMO labeling laws – even if that support was provided indirectly. Last year, the OCA launched a boycott of organic and so-called “natural” products owned by parent companies who are members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and who also donated directly to defeat California’s GMO labeling initiative, Proposition 37. Download this wallet-size boycott guide and use it when you shop. You may be surprised to learn that some of your favorite brands are owned by junk food corporations who are spending millions to defeat your right to know!

Pressure your favorite retailers to label and/or go GMO-Free

Thanks in large part to consumer pressure, Whole Foods Market announced earlier this year that it will begin labeling foods containing GMOs. Are they doing that just to be nice guys? Definitely not. It’s a business decision, based on the fact that Whole Foods sees GMO labeling as a marketing advantage – because consumers want labels and non-GMO alternatives. It’s great to see the big stores adopt this policy, but what about your favorite neighborhood co-op or natural foods store?

According to our research, more and more of these stores are listening to consumers. They’re adopting GMO labeling and non-GMO policies. Even better, they’re taking the pressure they’ve felt from consumers and throwing it right back on manufacturers by issuing ultimatums: either substitute the GMO ingredients in your products, or we’ll stop carrying them. The bottom line? If enough consumers ask for non-GMO products, retailers will find them. So ask!

Ask your member of Congress to vote ‘No’ on the continuing resolution if the Monsanto Protection Act is still in it

The Farmers Assurance Provision, better known as the Monsanto Protection Act, hands the biotech industry a free pass to grow crops that have not been adequately safety-tested, by giving the industry immunity from federal prosecution for growing crops that have been deemed unsafe. Earlier this year, the Monsanto Protection Act was slipped into the Continuing Resolution, a bill to fund the U.S. government through September 30.

Now, Congress is about to vote on a new Continuing Resolution (H.J.RES.59) in order to fund the government for another three months. And despite public outrage and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) has slipped the Monsanto Protection Act into the new bill. By calling and writing your Congressperson, you can pressure Congress to reject this biotech-friendly measure by refusing to pass the Continuing Resolution unless the Monsanto Protection Act is removed.

Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Tom Usher

Tom Usher

It's not always easy to discern where the lines are drawn by Jesus Christ as to what is or is not Christian. Most importantly, where is the line drawn concerning coercion (force by threat of arms and/or imprisonment, etc.)? The government's laws are backed up by such threats. Jesus though said that we are not to resist evil but are to turn the other cheek. We aren't even to kill to defend our children but rather teach our children that they are spiritual beings who will survive the death of the flesh and be rewarded by God for their righteous behavior even towards those who do the most despicable things towards them and those they love. At the same time, Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Most of us with any sense would have others tell yet others not to subject us to stealthy GMO's in what is sold as food and not to lie about the harm of labeling such ingredients so we may easily avoid such ingredients and may help farmers who want to be free of wicked law suits by Monsanto and the like when it is Monsanto and those like Monsanto who are polluting the gene pool of natural seeds and should have to pay the organic farmers for damaging those farmers.

So, can a person professing Christianity support laws requiring labeling of GMO's in products sold as food when those laws will be backed up or enforced by threats of punishment, etc.?

It's an evil world where Monsanto needs to even be told that what it is doing is evil.

In supporting labeling, I am not supporting violence. The method by which society chooses to deal with evil is not the same matter as supporting labeling.

Jesus laid out a progressive-discipline regime. The final straw in that regime as far as actions to be taken by the whole body, the Church, His Church, is to treat the offender, in this case Monsanto, as a heathen. Therefore, after decades of Monsanto and the others being told the evil of their ways, they are as heathens. The Christian won't starve them, but he or she won't facilitate their evil either.

You may call upon government to require labeling while you reserve judgment concerning "punishments" to enforce the law.

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.