Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] A leverage point we all can do something about

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Linda Ray <lindaray@att.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] A leverage point we all can do something about
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:16:08 -0700 (PDT)

I still want to know if someone is trying to sell me GMO ingredients or GMO
produce.
So that I can ditch it. 
 
Anyone who is in favor of GMOs might as well not read this, and don't give me
lip about it either. 
 
"Identity-preserved" is the missing phrase throughout the business guy's
response ("...from David Nicklaus, who is the business columnist..." blah
blah blah).
*Of course* his position is to "do nothing". He's a *business guy*.
 
I don't care if the "grain traders" don't like it either. They're looking for
profits, not healthiness.
 
I don't care what the AMA says, or the National Academy of Sciences and the
World
HealthOrganization – that genetic engineering poses no health risk. Spare me.
Or better yet, ask the Monarch Butterflies. AFAIAC, if that's what they're
saying, then they're gnutz.
 
I don't care what Thomas Redick thinks either, he's profiting off the
argument, writing another book.
 
Read what the work of the venerable researcher, Arpad Pusztai says about it:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai
or:
http://www.goodmedicinesociety.com/newtry-pusztai.htm
 
For anyone who hasn't realized it yet, our bodies require *complete, unbroken 
and recognizable DNA* to assimilate and gain actual nourishment from the
foods we have ingested. Not a patchwork quilt stuck together of fish,
tomatoes, pesticides and pesticide-producing segments with terminators to
breeding built in.
 
Is there a farmer around worth his/her salt who doesn't realize the
difference between hybrids and Heirlooms?
 
Anything which has been joined across incompatible-for-breeding species
boundaries is going to produce problems. IOW if 2 of whatever it is can't
mate and produce functional offspring there's going to be a problem (I'm not
saying there's no problem if they can either. Ask a mule.).
 
The "bounty-hunter clause" can be dropped out of the document. IMHO they
should add a hold-harmless clause *in favor of* the farmers who have been
(expensively) sued by MonsantaClaus et al because their poisonous seed crept
into the neighboring farmer's fields.
 
This is my opinion, and yes I vote by it.
 
Now let me tell you how I *really* feel...
 
Linda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


--- On Sun, 9/2/12, venaurafarm <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: venaurafarm <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] A leverage point we all can do something about
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 11:12 AM


On 9/1/2012 7:28 PM, Cory Brennan wrote:

> Labeling GMOs in California is a key leverage point to breaking the
> death grip that companies like Monsanto have on our food supply. We
> can take our food supply back from people who could care less about
> the quality of it.
>
> I know that most of you are doing quite a lot about that in various
> ways. I'm hoping that you all will also feel that you can take the
> 1-5 minutes or so that it takes to sign the petition, and forward
> this to others. Maybe you feel it won't make a difference but I think
> that letting the powers that be know how many people are against what
> they are doing on this front is an essential act. If you live in
> Calif, please vote yes on 37, and get your friends to do the same.
> The fact that Monsanto and others are fighting it so hard means they
> know it will affect sales.
>
> http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob344.htm
>
>
> This is a fast way to see who is paying to keep GMO's in your food a
> secret - no surprises there:
>
> http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-37-funding-genetically-engineered-food.html

> Koreen Brennan
>
> www.growpermaculture.com www.facebook.com/growpermaculturenow
> www.meetup.com/sustainable-urban-agriculture-coalition

Just so you'll know what the opposition is saying and publishing,
here are examples [LONG string of forwarded mesages] with rebuttals:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] Prop 37 is flawed in many ways
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:25:42 -0400
From: Thomas Redick <thomasredick@NETSCAPE.NET>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

As an attorney for growers (including nonGMO and organic growers), and
author of book on Mandatory GM food labeling, I continue to be astounded
at the
proposed CA Prop 37 law.

Assuming this list has some who care about truth, justice and a simple
farm family's right to feed us, I will share an article from our Sunday
paper in STL and an excerpt of a draft op-ed that I am writing about
this misguided law.

Tom
www.geeclaw.com

<>

While over 40 nations have laws labeling of GM food,the California
proposed law goes to new extremes, with: 1)  A “bounty hunter” payoff to
encourage Californialawyers to sue food companies, 2)  Thelowest
tolerance on the planet, 3)  Labelingoils made from GM crops, following
the lead of Brazil and the EU and mostimportantly, and 4)  An exemption
for organiccrops – unique worldwide.


Given its potential to mandate commercial speech (aproblem under the
First Amendment) and disrupt interstate commerce – anotherconstitutional
problem – this law may never survive litigation challenges.  California
consumers, like Vermont’sconsumers (who had their Bst-milk law rejected
by courts), can purchasevoluntarily-labeled non-GM’ food along with
their voluntarily labeled non-Bstmilk.


If Prop. 37 survives challenges to become law, however,the four-step
extremism noted above – lawyers, zero tolerance, oils, and exemptorganic
-- sets up a litigation paradise in California joining an
existingbonanza, as the New York Times recently reported (California is
the epicenterof consumer fraud litigation against food companies).  For
example, the only way to trace the use ofbiotech sources in oils (which
have no residue to test for protein or DNA) willbe via filing litigation
to seek costly “discovery” (depositions, documentsubpoenas etc.).


Such litigation hasbeen filed in another low-tolerance (0.9%),
oil-labeling nation – Brazil. US-basedgrain traders (Cargill and Bunge
North America) learned about this in Brazil in2007 when Greenpeace sued
demanding documents back to growers’ seed purchasesin a costly effort to
find out if any genetically engineered traces over 0.9%could be found.
Greenpeace found GMOs(1% would do) in the supply chain, to the chagrin
of these grain traders.  This type of case would be filed again
after2014, as lawyers looking for non-GMO food sold to the existing
prevalentstandard of 0.9% sue to force a GE label. When the tolerance
goes to “zero” they can expand their net of discoverymore broadly.
Defense costs wouldescalate as the tolerance goes from 0.5% (2014) to
zero (2019).


Assuming polls arepredictive, Prop 37 will pass by a margin (3-1)
similar to Prop. 65.  This California experiment in extreme GElabeling
law could quickly become a grower’s nightmare, particularly in
theCentral U.S. where most non-GMO commodities are produced.


This low tolerance will disrupt well-orderedorganic and commodity supply
chains in many processed foods, as manufacturersseek to avoid labeling.
  They willdeliver higher-priced food while only confusing consumers,
who will find thattheir new organic-only processed foods can – and
likely will -- havehigher levels of GM content than these impossibly low
tolerances.  Ironically, forcing disclosure only of GM,while exempting
organic, ensures that California consumers will not know whatpercentage
of GM content they are eating


Californialabeling fight may raise food prices for all of us
Adding a couple of words to a package of corn chips maysound simple
enough, but when those words are “genetically engineered,” thechange is
anything but simple.
That's why the food and agriculture industries are spending big money
todefeat a California ballot initiative that would require labeling of
any foodcontaining genetically modified ingredients. Monsanto and its
biotech rival,DuPont, have contributed morethan $4 million apiece to the
anti-labeling fight. Other donors includePepsico, Nestlé and Solae, a
food ingredients company based in St. Louis.
Backers of the initiative,known as Proposition 37, say they're fighting
for consumers' right to knowwhat's in their food. Opponents say
theproposition would require an expensive revamping of the nation's
agriculturesupply chain, adding billions of dollars to food costs.
To avoid applying the “genetically engineered” label inCalifornia, a
manufacturer would have to keep ingredients that aren'tgenetically
modified separate from those that are, and test products to makesure
that no stray genetic material has crept in.
All of that extra processing and testing wouldn't benefitconsumers,
because all of the relevant authorities – including the AmericanMedical
Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World
HealthOrganization – say genetic engineering poses no health risk.
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, a professor of agribusiness atthe University
of Missouri, says the proposed law would be a radical departurefrom
current U.S. labeling philosophy.
Health and nutrition information has long been mandatory onlabels, but
descriptors that don't affect nutritional value – such as “organic”or
“free range” or “pesticide free” – have always been voluntary.
“One issue that's broadly true for any company is thatpredictability of
regulation is important,” Kalaitzandonakes explains. “Onceyou start
going outside safety, you get into a different regulatory regime.”
While the words “genetically engineered” won't giveconsumers any
information, they are sort of scary-sounding. To Bruce Chassy,emeritus
professor of food science and nutrition at the University of
Illinois,that seems to be the point of Proposition 37.
“This is not science-based, and that's why I think it's adishonest
campaign,” Chassy says. “They do not see this as giving consumers
theright to know. They see it as a foot in the door to get genetically
modifiedcrops out of the store and out of the field.”
Tom Redick, a Clayton attorney who has written a book aboutfood labeling
laws around the world, foresees a blizzard of litigation ifProposition
37 becomes law. He worries about a “bounty hunter” clause, whichwould
let anyone sue over a perceived labeling violation. The burden then
wouldbe on the food company to submit documents and tests of all
ingredients.
“It's not a law that will do any good for growers or thepublic, but it
will sure be great for lawyers,” Redick says.
As companies revamp their supply chains to protect againstsuch lawsuits,
food prices will rise. Certified non-GMO agricultural productscost
roughly 15 percent more than their commodity equivalents.
Those costs will be passed on to all consumers, not justthose in California.
Citing the spending of Monsanto and others, the supportersof Proposition
37 are trying to portray this as a battle of Big Agricultureagainst the
people, but they've got it wrong.
It's really a matter of common sense vs. scare tactics. Andin this case,
common sense is on Big Agriculture's side.
Read more fromDavid Nicklaus, who is the business columnist for the
Post-Dispatch. OnTwitter, follow him@dnickbiz andthe Business section
@postdispatchbiz.



http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/california-labeling-fight-may-raise-food-prices-for-all-of/article_2202cd26-e89e-11e1-8a7f-0019bb30f31a.htmlDAVID

NICKLAUS • dnicklaus@post-dispatch.com >314-340-8213


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Astera <michael.astera@gmail.com>
To: thomasredick <thomasredick@netscape.net>
Cc: SANET-MG <SANET-MG@lists.ifas.ufl.edu>
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: Prop 37 is flawed in many ways

Thomas, thanks for making my day by choosing to put your scary
propaganda piece as an answer to my earlier post.  Also thanks for
letting me know just how much your owners are sweating this.

As for lawyers, nothing I would like better than to see the corporate
monsters who have unconscionably loosed these abominations on innocent
people sued out of existence. If there is GMO contamination in exempt
Organic food, we know how it got there, and that it happened precisely
because GMO crops were not properly vetted, regulated, or labeled.  If
mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients makes food more expensive, we know
exactly whom to blame: those corporations who foisted it on the
unknowing public and did everything in their power to keep it from being
properly investigated.

If you would like to write something of interest, please tell us why the
GMO corporations have fought so hard against independent investigations
of the health and environmental effects of their creations?

You don't want to know what I wish for you and those you serve.

Michael Astera
http://soilminerals.com

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM,  <thomasredick@netscape.net> wrote:

As an attorney for growers (including nonGMO and organic growers), and
author of book on Mandatory GM food labeling, I continue to be astounded
at the
proposed CA Prop 37 law.

Assuming this list has some who care about truth, justice and a simple
farm family's right to feed us, I will share an article from our Sunday
paper in STL
and an excerpt of a draft op-ed that I am writing about this misguided law.

Tom
www.geeclaw.com


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Prop 37 is flawed in many ways
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:17:07 -0400
From: Thomas Redick <thomasredick@NETSCAPE.NET>
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
<SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>, thomasredick@NETSCAPE.NET
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Michael,

Voluntary labeling for NonGMO at the tolerance chosen by consumers
provides choice, much more effectively than mandatory governmental
labeling (which operates in parallel and provides little added value,
only potential regulatory violations and recalls).

Contrary to the repeated untruths stated on this listserver, companies
like Pioneer have voluntarily investigated issues relating to
allergenicity (e.g., chose not to market a soybean that appeared, based
on DNA sequences, to come too close to a Brazil nut human allergen for
comfort as chicken feed -- rather than risk commingling and potential
harm, Pioneer chose an approach that appears "precautionary".

I represent growers, not the corporations you seem to loathe so much.  I
am grateful, however, that we have a country that gives freedom of
choice, including ownership of stock in corporations, which have brought
plenty of good along with the bad aspects.

All the best

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Astera <michael.astera@GMAIL.COM>
To: SANET-MG <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 10:56 am
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Would Rachel Carson Embrace GM Foods?


Wow. More false or misleading statements in that Pam Ronald article than
one can shake a stick at. Here's a real whopper:

"...genetically engineered cotton. These varieties contain a bacterial
protein called Bt that kills pests, but does not harm beneficial insects
and spiders. Bt itself is benign to humans..."

And another:

"despite the fact that all established health and science groups such as
the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and
the World health
Organization<http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html>have
rejected claims that genetically engineered crops or foods pose
additional risks or have altered nutritional profiles as compared to
foods derived from conventional genetic alteration."

No mention of Roundup or other herbicides or their toxicity. And rather
than noting the huge number of suicides of small farmers in India who
lost all they had due to crop failure ot GMO crops, we get this:

"This month, German researchers
reported<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1203647109.full.pdf%2Bhtml>that

farmers in India growing Bt cotton increased their yield by 24%, their
profit by 50% and raised their living standards by 18%."

What's it all about?

"the incendiary debate over a fall ballot initiative that would require
warning labels on all foods with GE ingredients"

And if their is proof that GMO crops are beneficial and healthy, what's
the problem with labeling them? Unfortunately there is no proof, and the
GMO patent owners do not allow independent testing.

This is a pretty shameless sellout, made even more icky by the emphasis
on Pam Ronald's husband being an "organic" farmer. GMOs are not allowed
under the USDA NOP rules. Is he chomping at the bit to start growing
them and calling them organic?

Might be worthwhile investigating whether Pam Ronald's husband really is
an organic farmer.

Michel Astera
http://soilminerals.com

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John D'hondt <dhondt@eircom.net> wrote:

> Even stronger, I can't immagine for a second that Rachel Carson
> would embrace this newer nail in the coffin of a Buzzing Spring.
> john

>> I doubt that Rachel Carson would embrace biotechnology were she
>> alive. I would definitely think twice about embracing Pam Ronald.
>> sincerely, joe cummins


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Prop 37 is flawed in many ways
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:00:21 -0400
From: Gil Gillespie <gwg2@CORNELL.EDU>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

On 8/20/2012 3:25 PM, Thomas Redick wrote:
> As an attorney for growers (including nonGMO and organic growers),
andauthor of book on Mandatory GM food labeling, I continue to be
astounded at the
> proposed CA Prop 37 law.
>
>
> Assuming this list has some who care about truth, justice and a
simple farm family's right to feed us, I will share an article from our
Sunday paper in STL
> and an excerpt of a draft op-ed that I am writing about this
misguided law.
>
>
> Tom
> www.geeclaw.com

. . .

In case anyone is interested, the book cited above is (courtesy of
Amazon.com):

Thwarting Consumer Choice: The Case against Mandatory Labeling for
Genetically Modified Foods [Hardcover]
Gary E. Marchant (Editor), Guy A. Cardineau (Editor), Thomas P. Redick
(Editor), AEI Press (May 16, 2010)

Book Description
Publication Date: May 16, 2010 | ISBN-10: 0844743267 | ISBN-13:
978-0844743264
Are consumers entitled to full disclosure about what is in their food?
Many countries, including key U.S. trading partners in Europe and Asia,
have adopted mandatory labeling laws for genetically modified crops such
as corn and soybeans.
Policymakers in the United States are under pressure from activist
groups to adopt similar laws, and some public opinion polls suggest that
90 percent of Americans support mandatory GM labeling. But does GM
labeling really protect consumers? In Thwarting Consumer Choice, Gary E.
Marchant, Guy A. Cardineau, and Thomas P. Redick contend that mandatory
GM labeling laws actually harm consumers by pushing
genetically modified foods off the market.

Although proponents of mandatory labeling often question the safety of
genetically modified foods, the National Academy of Sciences and other
leading research institutions agree that "GM foods present no unique
risks, or greater risks than non-GM foods." Genetically modified foods
are not only safe, but abundant and inexpensive. Because they require
less use of pesticides and fewer acres of land than conventional crops,
they do not overtax the environment. Future innovations could produce GM
foods with increased vitamin levels and reduced fat content.

Despite these vast benefits, the GM food industry is threatened by
labeling requirements that are burdensome, expensive, and stigmatizing.
Mandatory labeling would deter investment in this burgeoning
biotechnology and deprive the public of important innovations.
Ultimately, the authors conclude, GM labeling laws are
antithetical to the notion of consumer choice.

Review:
Gary E. Marchant, Thomas P. Redick and Guy A. Cardineau (two lawyers and
a biotechnologist, respectively) stand against mandatory labeling
requirements for genetically modified foods. In this slim volume,
published by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research, the authors argue that while GM labeling is designed to give
consumers more choice at the grocery store, the law will actually harm
consumers by pushing such foods off the shelves....It provides
interesting food for thought. (Review Of Higher Education, June 2010 )

About the Author[s]
Gary E. Marchant is Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law, and
Ethics at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State
University. Guy A. Cardineau is the Associated Students of Arizona State
University Centennial Professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of
Law at Arizona State University.
Thomas P. Redick is the principal attorney in the Global Environmental
Ethics Counsel.



_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
message archives:  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
Google message archive search:
site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page