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: venaurafarm <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] A leverage point we all can do something about
  • Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:12:30 -0400

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.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page