Rick North: "Response" To The Oregonian Op-Ed - Measure 27 (2002)

October 25, 2002: In a recent editorial, the Oregonian said that Measure 27 would create increased costs for consumers, echoing the statements of the opposition.

However, when it comes to labeling genetically engineered foods, there is simply no evidence that costs would increase significantly, if at all.

Over 25 nations, comprising nearly half the world’s population, have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. In every country, the result was either zero or minimal price increases. The opposition cites a “study” that estimates an increase of $550 per year for a four-person family, or $137 per person per year.

The Oregonian accepted this figure at face value, even though the study was funded completely by the opposition. This is reminiscent of studies paid for by the tobacco industry indicating that cigarette smoking didn’t cause cancer or heart disease.

By contrast, an independent study by Professor William Jaeger, an economist and agricultural resource policy specialist at Oregon State, estimated that increased costs in Oregon would be only $3 - $10 per person per year.

Independent studies for four other nations estimated similar costs – none were even close to the $137 figure. In reviewing the opposition’s study, Jaeger concluded that it “does not represent a detailed, thorough, or reliable economic analysis.” The Department of Administrative Services estimated the annual cost to regulate the labeling program at $11.3 million.

However, this includes costs for restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other establishments that serve or distribute food ready-to-eat. Without restaurants, schools, etc., the annual costs are $2.4 million, only 71 cents per person per year.

The initiative refers only to labeling food already having display panels for bulk, wholesale, or retail sale, and does not mention food served ready-to-eat.

Measure 27 advocates have stated in their websites and literature that these foods are not included, although the opposition has argued otherwise. Again, the Oregonian has simply accepted the opposition’s viewpoint.

Because there has been controversy over the initiative’s wording on this point, it’s helpful to know what would happen if the measure passes. If there are questions about interpretation of anystatutory initiative, legislative committees typically gather input from all sides, clarify any issues,and submit an amended law.

Since neither advocates nor opponents want labeling for restaurants,schools and other ready-to-eat food establishments, there is no disagreement and they obviously wouldn't be covered.And to clear up one other misconception, grocery clerks wouldn’t label genetically engineered food packaging, just as they don’t label for calories or vitamins. It’s done by the processor.

There are serious health, environmental, dietary and religious questions about genetically engineered foods. This is why the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists and Oregon League of Conservation Voters, among many others, have endorsed Measure 27.

We have a right to know what is in our food. Consumers should be able to make an informed choice about what they eat, and, like the bottle bill, Oregon can lead the way. Please vote yes on Measure 27.

Rick North
Spokesperson
Vote Yes on 27 Committee
www.voteyeson27.com

David J. Brown - Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences | College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

David J. Brown - Heavy NoOn44 article commenter.

David J. Brown

Associate Professor

Curriculum Vitae (pdf)

EducationPhD/MS Soil Science/Biometry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002 MS Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1997 BS/BA Electrical Engineering/Rhetoric, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1988

Research InterestsMy research group is focused on measuring, modeling and explaining the spatial variability of soil properties and processes at hillslope to regional scales.  In pursuing this research, we make extensive use of digital terrain modeling, optical remote sensing, spatial statistics, and proximal soil sensing techniques (e.g. VisNIR spectroscopy).

Article: 

Biotech's Losing Game of Whack-A-Mole

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

Rick North, you can't really be intellectually honest and cite earthopensource as a credible source for science. Cherry picking a handful of poor studies in weak journals is advocacy, not science. Highlighting a handful of scientists who have doubts about GMOs does not balance out the vast majority who believe they are as safe as conventionally bred crops.

And you completely misunderstand the comparison of anti-GMO folks with climate change deniers. They are clearly not the same people. The argument is that they are equivalent in how they operate in a hermetically sealed world, reading only their own websites with carefully cultivated truth. And they are both clearly anti-science. But the anti-GMO folks are almost entirely on the left while the climate change deniers are almost entirely on the right.

On this forum, there have been multiple links provided to independent research, but clearly you haven't taken the time to explore this information seriously. It hasn't been an honest dialog. Instead you fall back on the giant conspiracy that all scientists have been corrupted by the 197th largest corporation in America. This is exactly analogous to the climate change deniers who believe that there is a vast government-academic conspiracy on climate science. Those on the right distrust government. Those on the left inherently distrust corporations. Both put their fingers in their ears and shut out the vast body of science on the GMO and climate change issues, respectively, by simply asserting that the academic enterprise has been corrupted by the enemy (government or corporations, take your pick).

If someone wants to get a balanced, informed, and accessible take on this debate from a science writer who actually supports labeling, spend some time reading Nathanael Johnson at Grist. I don't agree with everything Nathanael writes, but he is honest and informed, something we certainly need more of in this discussion.

http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

The claim that there is no independent research on GMOs is a wildly false internet meme. For the formal approval process for ANY new food or drug, a company must pay for the science to document their submission (either done in house or more often by private firms). But that doesn't mean that academics haven't conduced research as well.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) recently released a report based on thousands of academic studies.
"EASAC also sought to placate green critics who claim that the majority of scientific studies on GMO safety are biased because they are carried out by researchers who are paid for by industrial lobby groups.

“We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC."

http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693

What led to the death of the FLAVR SAVR tomato?

What led to the death of the FLAVR SAVR tomato?

Introduction

What is the FLAVR SAVR Tomato?
Why it fails on conquering the market?

Even though genetic
engineering promises better and more plentiful products, genetically engineered
foods may encounter a few obstacles to widespread public acceptance. Some
consumers, along with a few advocacy groups, have voiced concern about the
safety and environmental impact of these new food products. Some urge an
outright ban on any genetically engineered foods. Others support mandatory
labeling that discloses the use of genetic engineering. Still others advocate
more stringent testing of these products before marketing.
 
Public Acceptance

Thus whether genetically
engineered foods succeed or fail depends on public acceptance. Early reports on
the Flavr Savr tomato, the first recombinant DNA-derived whole food product to
reach grocery shelves, were favorable. Calgene said sales in the product's
first two markets--California and Illinois--were "a total success."
Calgene chairman Roger Salquist said consumers responded "with purchases
and praise."
 
In contrast, some
consumer groups have criticized the Calgene product, demanding greater FDA
scrutiny of genetically engineered foods or an outright ban on all of them.
Their reasons range from safety fears to ethics. One group, the Environmental
Defense Fund, said, "Consumption of some of these novel foods might
present new hazards. [Some genetically engineered] compounds are new food
ingredients and clearly should be evaluated for their safety."
 
FDA scientists and
others in the field blame some negative consumer reaction on the recombinant
DNA technique's complexity. The technology is difficult to understand, so there
is a fear of the unknown. Genetic engineering "simply sounds scary",
says Maryanski. "People call FDA and say, 'We don't want anyone tinkering
with our food.' Then we remind them that there's hardly a food in the grocery
store that hasn't been extensively tinkered with."
 
He illustrates this by
comparing today's foods with those in the last century. "Take corn. Those
nice, juicy ears of corn we have--they didn't exist. Some kinds of corn had a
hard outer shell on the kernel that you couldn't eat until it was made into
flour. And the kiwi was developed from a hard little berry. We only have our
present-day kiwi--and our corn and wheat and hundreds of other foods--because
of extensive plant breeding." 

The story
Discussion
The story of the rise
and fall of the first genetically engineered crop accepted for the FDA has a
lot of actors that influenced its final fate. On one side are the scientists
that believe in the biotechnology and support the new developments and a whole
world of possibilities, not only in agricultural products but also in
pharmaceutical, health and environmental too. In the other side are the
frighten people that don’t understand the technology used for producing their
food and do not find the support or accompaniment necessary for given a very
big step in their life style.
References

Genetic transformation has developed several
new products with impacts on society, from medicines to food products with
better nutritional quality. The largest commercial success of genetic engineering
was the production of human insulin in transgenic bacteria in 1980. Since then,
many other products have been released.

The first genetically engineered crop variety
to reach the market was the tomato variety Flavr Savr, developed by the Calgene
Company, located in Davis, California. This product, introduced to the market
on May 21, 1994, was developed with the introduction of two novel genes in a
tomato plant. The first gene was a reverse copy of the poligalactonurase gene,
which codes for an enzyme that breaks down cellulose. The introduction of this
gene in the reverse form, also called antisense, resulted in low production of
the poligalactonurase enzyme. Consequently, ripe tomato fruits do not lose
their firmness because the cell wall of these fruits, which is made of
cellulose, does not degrade as rapidly as it does in normal tomatoes. The
second gene transferred in the development of Flavr Savr codes for resistance
to the antibiotic kanamycin. This gene works as a reporter or marker to
facilitate the identification of transformed individuals.

The first genetically
engineered whole product went on the market in May 1994 when FDA determined
that a new tomato that can be shipped vine-ripened without rotting rapidly is
as safe as other commercial tomatoes. The Flavr Savr is the first ready-to-eat
food product available to the U.S. public that used recombinant DNA processes.
Its maker, Calgene, Inc., created the Flavr Savr on the premise that many
consumers are not satisfied with most store-bought tomatoes, especially in the
off-season. Surveys show that though 85 percent of U.S. households buy fresh
tomatoes, some 80 percent are displeased with the quality of grocery store
tomatoes.

The problem is that tomatoes need warm
climates to grow, so most off-season store tomatoes must travel a long way
after they are picked. To survive their journey intact, tomatoes are picked
while they are still green, which is a good way to avoid bruising, but which
results in a tomato that is often described as having the consistency and
mouth-feel of a tennis ball.

If picked when ripe, tomatoes rot quickly.
Though Calgene vine-ripens its tomatoes, the company solved the rotting problem
by inserting a reversed copy--an "antisense" gene of the gene that
encodes the enzyme that results in tomato spoilage. This suppresses the enzyme
that results in rotting, allowing the tomato to stay ripe, but not rot, up to
10 days--plenty of time for shipping and sale. Refrigeration is not necessary.

Though FDA policy didn't require premarket
approval of the Flavr Savr tomato, Calgene sought FDA's review anyway. The
company also asked FDA to approve as a new food additive the protein that
produces kanamycin resistance. This marker protein allows breeders to identify
early in the gene-transfer process which plant cells have successfully
incorporated the new trait. Inserting the marker confers resistance to the
antibiotic kanamycin. This is a valuable tool when trying to figure out which
cells have the new gene and which do not. But it also adds very small amounts
of a new protein to diets of millions of Americans and raises concerns about
issues such as antibiotic resistance.

"That was one of the scientific issues we
evaluated," says Jim Maryanski, Ph.D., FDA's food biotechnology
coordinator. "And we found the kanr gene encoded marker protein would not
affect the clinical effectiveness of kanamycin in people taking the drug
orally."

FDA published regulations in 1994 allowing use
of the kanr gene encoded marker protein in new plant varieties. Though not
required, Calgene provided point-of-sale information that describes the tomato
as a genetically engineered product. Reactions to the Flavr Savr have been largely
positive, though some consumer groups have decried the product, giving it names
like "Frankentomato." Others, including some restaurant chefs, issued
public criticism of all recombinant DNA-derived foods.

But industry groups were enthusiastic. Carl
Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, called the new
tomato "a significant step forward for consumers in terms of the quality
of the food they eat."

And Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh
Fruit & Vegetable Association, said the genetically engineered food
products now in development "will offer consumers more choices for
improved quality, nutrition, and environmental benefits."

Ultimately, consumers will decide for
themselves whether these new products and processes make sense. As for safety,
FDA officials emphasize that these foods will be just as safe as products
consumers are used to finding on their store shelves

Possibly the main factor that helps the fall of the Flavr
Savr tomato was the lost of sight of the objective from the Calgene company
management; they chose their product based on technical and regulatory
convenience, not on developing and marketing a superior product. They didn’t
include tomato breeders and production experts in their decision making and
production process.

·      
Borém
Aluízio, Santos Fabrício R., Bowen David E.
Understanding Biotechnology. ED.
Prentice Hall, 2003.

·      
Massey
Rachel. Biotech--the basics. Rachel's Environment and Health News #719,
March 1, 2001.

·      
Henkel
John, Publication No. (FDA) 98-2295

·      
Alan
McHughen, You Say Tomato. Nature biotechnology. October 2001 p.
909.

Report done by:

Camilo
Mancera Arias.

Iowa farmer visits Southern Oregon to discuss GMO-related health concerns | DailyTidings.com

Howard Vlieger's presentation "excerpts" in Seattle, WA Sept. 2013. (Presentation Playlist)

An Iowa farmer who claims pigs exposed to genetically modified organisms suffer more ailments than other animals will speak in Ashland next week in support of a local campaign to ban GMOs here.

Howard Vlieger, of Maurice, Iowa, conducted experiments in which a group of pigs was fed corn and grain treated with GMO herbicides and a control group wasn't. The pigs exposed to GMOs showed digestive, immunity and reproductive problems, while the control group didn't, he said.

As a result, the GMO group needed more antibiotics for E. coli and botulism, he added.
Vlieger, who has conducted studies over the past 20 years, will give presentations Tuesday and Wednesday, Jan. 28-29, throughout the Rogue Valley. He is being sponsored by GMO-Free Jackson County, a campaign to support a May ballot measure that would mostly ban GMOs locally.

Read More: Iowa farmer visits Southern Oregon to discuss GMO-related health concerns | DailyTidings.com




Sacramento Grange meeting Wednesday January 22


Howard Vlieger's CA/OR Event List

• Wednesday, January 22, 7 p.m. - Sacramento
• Thursday, January 23, 7:30 p.m. - Roseville
• Friday, January 24, 6:30 p.m. - Fair Oaks
• Saturday, January 25, 10 a.m. - Sebastopol
• Saturday, January 25, 3 p.m. - Santa Rosa
• Sunday, January 26, 2 p.m. - Windsor
• Sunday, January 26, 7 p.m. - Petaluma
• Monday, January 27, 1 p.m. - Fortuna
• Monday, January 27, 6 p.m. - Eureka
• Tuesday, January 28th, 2pm, Plaisance Ranch, Williams
• Tuesday, January 28th, 7.30pm, Student Union - Rogue River Room, Southern Oregon University, Ashland
• Friday, January 29th 3pm, RCC Campus, Grants Pass
• Friday, January 29th, 7.30pm, Medford Public Library, Medford 
• Thursday, January 30, 10 a.m. - Yreka
• Thursday, January 30, 4 p.m. - Chico
• Thursday, January 30, 7:30 p.m. - Oroville
• Friday, January 31, 6 p.m. - Laguna Woods
• Saturday, February 1, 11 a.m. - Redlands

Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject GMO Labeling Initiative?

       
              

Next Meal: Engineering Food was posted on YouTube May 7, 2013 and premiered six days later in the San Francisco Bay Area on KQED Channel 9. Originally, the thirty-minute special report was scheduled to air on PBS stations nationwide, after the Nov. 5 Washington State election, Nov. 13.

Randy Brinson, Executive Director of KCST Programming, decided to broadcast the QUEST science program on the Seattle PBS station with a viewing audience of almost two-thirds of Washington's population, a couple of days before the end of the election because it was "timely".

On the Washington State ballot was Initiative 522, a bill that would require genetically engineered foods to be labeled.

TV Guide states the premise of the show is "an examination of genetically engineered crops, including how they're created; their pros and cons; and what the future might hold for research and such regulations as labeling."


Photo:  Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, Spokane, WA

Upon learning of the re-scheduling of "Next Meal" on KCST, Washington State grassroots volunteer supporters of I-522 sent e-mails and made phone calls to the station in an attempt to prevent the program from airing days before the end of the election. Since the program, funded by the National Science Foundation, heavily featured the pros of genetically engineered crops and did not fully explore the cons that it could sway voters to reject the ballot initiative.

When the program was shown in May, audience members posted comments on the KQED website and the KQED Science YouTube page regarding the biased bio-tech slant.

KQED member "Jenny" posted the comment below 5 months ago that represents viewer back lash:

"In your description of this piece, you state:
'Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks?'

"I heard a lot of talk about the benefit, but I didn't hear anything about the risks.
"Where are the scientists on the other side of the argument?
"This special doesn't even try to be serious.
"I am amazed that KQED would put something like this on the air."

The day after "Next Meal" was first shown on KCST October 30, two articles were published regarding the show:

Steven Peters, Natural Revolution, stated in his article, "PBS to Air Pro-GMO Film in Washington Days Before Vote on Labeling Initiative,"

"This film Next Meal: Engineering Food is little more than a commercial for the biotech industry. It’s a shame that public broadcasting has been co-opted by big corporations. The airing of the documentary film, Next Meal: Engineering Food is indeed not an impartial look at both sides of the GMO controversy. The undertones are very much Pro-GMO; not showing both sides equally, but in favor of GMOs 'and the chemicals used to grown them being safe'."

Retired US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson wrote in her Seattle Examiner article, "Et Tu, PBS?" that:

"This program looks like the propaganda put forth by the chemical industries who are promoting GMOs. On the program, they trotted out an array of plant biologists, all singing the praises of GE crops and how they are environmentally friendly and are going to feed the world."

Last week, the Yes On 522 campaign conceded the election. Washington State voters failed to pass I-522, the initiative that would have labeled genetically engineered foods, by the narrow margin of 39,000 votes (49%-51%).

In her letter to supporters, Trudy Bialic, Co-Chair of Yes On 522 and PCC Natural Markets director of consumer affairs, did not mention the Seattle PBS stations broadcast. Instead she focused on the 22 million dollars spent by the opposition: "As we continue to push for labeling, we also must work to reverse the perversion of our democratic election procedures with unlimited corporate spending."

Did the four broadcasts of Next Meal between Oct. 30 and Nov. 5 sway voters? Did it, in fact, influence the outcome of the Washington State election?

If so, it is a huge slap in the face to several KCST donors:


PCC Natural Markets is a KCST local programming underwriter. The certified organic retail cooperative that operates nine stores serving 46,000 active members, spent over $250,000 to collect signatures to put the initiative on the ballot last year and to fund the "Yes On 522" campaign this year.

The Newman's Own Foundation is a KCST matching fund donor. Royalties paid by Newman's Own Organics for use of the Newman name help support foundation activities. Nell Newman, the oldest daughter of Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman and founder of Newman's Own Organics, states on the company website: "GEs have no place in organic agriculture and [we] are calling for a moratorium until more scientific research has been done on the safety of this technology."
                           
Both organizations were asked if they would support a boycott on PBS, along with Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula, the Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America and GMO Free USA, by withdrawing their financial support to the Seattle station.


The Seattle based PCC replied with this e-mail:

"At this time, PCC does not plan a boycott of KCTS for the airing of this show.

"It would be unfair to boycott KCTS for airing this show even with the assumption (and it is an assumption) that they aired it to persuade public opinion to vote No on this initiative.

"The Seattle Times editorial board chose to support No on 522 but we did not pull our advertising from their papers.

"We honor and agree with freedom of the press and free speech.

"We plan to continue to support KCTS with underwriting of local programming.

"Sincerely, Laurie Albrecht Director of Marketing / PCC Natural Markets"

The News's Own Foundation Response:

"Newman’s Own Foundation turns all royalties and profits from the sale of Newman’s Own products into charitable donations.  To date, Paul Newman and Newman’s Own Foundation have given over $380 million to thousands of charities around the world.  

It is the Foundation’s policy not to comment on individual grantees. However, we do review each organization prior to awarding grants, to determine its fit within the Foundation’s priorities. Further information about our grant making policies is available on the Foundation’s website at www.NewmansOwnFoundation.org.

We greatly appreciate your interest in the foundation."

In a statement sent to KCST members before the first broadcast of the program, Brinson, a 35-year public broadcasting veteran, defended his decision to protesting members that "Next Meal" was "a journalistic piece that explores the science behind genetic engineering while including multiple perspectives on the issue."

Photo: UC Berkeley biologist Peggy Lemaux is genetically engineering sorghum to make it more easily digestible. Sorghum, a cereal related to corn, is a staple food for 300 million people in Africa. Credit: Arwen Curry, KQED

Is Next Meal objective journalism or an infomercial for the biotech industry?

Charles Mish, a retired journalism, English and film professor, looked up the Society of Professional Journalists "Code of Ethics.”   Here's what he found in  Section 4: Accuracy and Objectivity:

"Good faith with the public is the foundation of all worthy journalism.

"1. Truth is our ultimate goal.

"2. Objectivity in reporting the news... serves as the mark of an experienced professional. It is the standard of performance towards which we strive. We honor those who achieve it.

"3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness."

According to Wikipedia,  Journalist ethics and standards comprise principles of "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability-- as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

To answer the "journalistic" question, this survey was sent to journalists across the county to get their perspective regarding the controversy.

Research Notes

• Next Meal: The First Five+ Minutes (GMO Skeptics air time 0:31 seconds)
• Next Meal: Complete Log/Rating (GMO Skeptics total air time: 1:50 minutes)

I-522 Google News Article Stream (60+)

The battle lines on food labeling Politico - ‎2 hours ago‎ Just like in California, the opponents to I-522 are lining up late in the game in Washington with campaign donations. As of the latest disclosure reports filed with the state Sept. 30, the opposition campaign  had raised almost $17.2 million — roughly four times ... I-522 Will Finish Job We Started in California, Mother of GMO Labeling Initiative ... Seattle Post Intelligencer (blog) - ‎16 hours ago‎ In the last two weeks of September Larry toured Washington state to support the state's grassroots effort to pass I-522, the labeling initiative whose fate will be decided by voters November 5. We spoke with her in Seattle. Clarissa asked our first question. GMOs in I-522 debate The Seattle Times (blog) - ‎8 hours ago‎ It is not surprising that Monsanto is a big supporter of the “No on I-522” campaign, since they are the supplier of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The Food & Water Watch found that the  “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE ... Science: The Missing Ingredient in the GMO Food Labeling Debate Xconomy - ‎1 hour ago‎ Residents of Washington State are currently being buried in an avalanche of ads regarding  a citizen's initiative that would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in grocery stores. Estimates for the percentage of items that contain genetically ... Advocacy group's new study says I-522's GMO labels won’t add to consumer ... TheNewsTribune.com - ‎13 hours ago‎ An initiative requiring labeling of genetically modified foods would not add costs to Washington residents' food bills, a new study by an Emory University professor claims. The report was released Monday by the Alliance for Natural Health USA, an advocacy ...

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

KELLY D. BROWNELL and KENNETH E. WARNER
Yale University; University of Michigan (2009)

Context:In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public’s health was the industry’s concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost
millions of lives. In the hope that the food history will be written differently, this article both highlights important lessons that can be learned from the tobacco experience and recommends actions for the food industry.

Methods:A review and analysis of empirical and historical evidence pertaining to tobacco and food industry practices, messages, and strategies to influence public opinion, legislation and regulation, litigation, and the conduct of science.

Findings: The tobacco industry had a playbook, a script, that emphasized personal responsibility, paying scientists who delivered research that instilled doubt, criticizing the “junk” science that found harms associated with smoking, making self-regulatory pledges, lobbying with massive resources to stifle government action, introducing “safer” products, and simultaneously manipulating and denying both the addictive nature of their products and their marketing to children. The script of the food industry is both similar to and different from
the tobacco industry script.

Conclusions: Food is obviously different from tobacco, and the food industry differs from tobacco companies in important ways, but there also are significant similarities in the actions that these industries have taken in response to concern that their products cause harm. Because obesity is now a major global problem, the world cannot afford a repeat of the tobacco history, in which industry talks about the moral high ground but does not occupy it.

...the industry is organized and politically powerful. It
consists of massive agribusiness companies like Cargill, Archer Daniels
Midland, Bunge, and Monsanto; food sellers as large as Kraft (so big
as to own Nabisco) and Pepsi-Co (owner of Frito Lay); and restaurant
companies as large as McDonald’s and Yum! Brands (owner of Pizza
Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, and more). These are represented by lobbyists,
lawyers, and trade organizations that in turn represent a type of food (e.g.,
Snack Food Association, American Beverage Association), a segment of
the industry (e.g., National Restaurant Association), a constituent of
food (e.g., Sugar Association, Corn Refiners Association), or the entire
industry (e.g., Grocery Manufacturers of America).
Common to all these players is an arresting logic: to successfully
address the obesity epidemic, the nation must consume fewer calories,
which means eating less food...A shrinking market for all those
calories would mean less money—a lot less.



Address correspondence to: Kelly D. Brownell, Rudd Center for Food Policy and
Obesity, Yale University, 309 Edwards St., Box 208369, New Haven, CT
06520-8369 (email: kelly.brownell@yale.edu).
The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 1, 2009 (pp. 259–294)
c 2009 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.
259

Iowa Farmer Warns Of GMO Dangers

Written By Charles Mesh

In his first experiment with GM crops back in 1997, it didn’t take Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger long to figure out that his cows were smarter than the Bio Tech scientists.

Initially excited by the potential of this new technology, he decided to see for himself what would happen when he fed his cows both GM and natural corn. Result: all 25 cows walked right past the GM corn to get to the natural corn.
A vigorous, unpretentious man with a determined look and boundless energy, Vlieger recently completed a two-week lecture tour here in Washington state to educate the public about the hazards of GM food. He said he wanted to help Washington voters make an informed choice on I-522, the GMO labeling initiative whose fate will be decided November 5.

“We have a road map on how to win the battle of keeping GMO out of the food supply: educate the consumer,” Vlieger said. “I don't tell people what to think.I just put facts in front of them and let them make up their own minds.” Vlieger took over the family farm after his father's death in 1981.

By 1989 Vlieger had taken up alternative farming, or what he calls biological crop production as well as organic methods. In 1992 he founded Verity Farms, a company offering nutritional advice on crops to farmers transitioning out of chemically intensive agriculture.

In his work, Vlieger draws not only on his own experience, but also on the experience of his fellow farmers. He tells the story of a farmer who wrote to the Farm Bureau of West Central Iowa that his hogs were having reproductive and intestinal problems at an unusually high rate (miscarriages, bloody bowels, ileitis, salmonella).

When the story was circulated in the Bureau’s newsletter, several farmers called the office and reported the same kind of problems. Eventually it was discovered that all the farmers in the area were using the same type of GM corn.

When they switched back to feeding their hogs the natural corn, the problems vanished, Vlieger said. When the situation was brought to the attention of the local Ag school scientists, they did not see a connection between the GM feed and the pigs’ problems. “Anecdotal information,” they said. “Inconclusive.” Here too, it did not take long for Vlieger to realize that the hog farmers were smarter than the scientists.
Not to say that Vlieger is against science per se. Quite the opposite. When he had the good fortune to meet Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue, Huber told him that the Vlieger’s boots-on-the- ground, hands-on experiences and observations were the first step of science, Vlieger said. Huber was happy to work with a farmer who noticed problems and patterns in his practice of agriculture.

Huber said the next step would be to conduct a full-fledged scientific experiment with protocols and controls.
This year, in collaboration with Dr. Judy Carmen of Australia, Vlieger co-authored and published the world’s first peer-reviewed, double-blind, independent long-term study of hogs fed GM grain and non-GM grain for their life span as a meat animal.

This study showed statistically significant findings: first, the uteruses were 25% heavier in sows fed GM grain; second, the boars were 2.6 and the sows 2.2 times more likely to seek to have severe inflammation in the stomach.

The study brought Vlieger international recognition, and continued the work begun by scientists such as Arpad Pusztai (UK 1999), Gilles Seralini (France 2012) and others—all conducting long-term studies on animals showing serious adverse effects—e.g., organ damage, tumors, reproductive problems.

Almost unbelievably, Vlieger said, in our country the FDA did not require even one long-term animal study. The biotech industry’s testing was voluntary and no study longer than 90 days was ever submitted. When you get past 90 days, that's when the problems begin, he said.
This work is not for the faint of heart. Consider the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a well-respected scientist at the prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland with over 300 peer-reviewed published articles.

When he sounded the alarm in regards to the foreign protein in GMO crops, he was brutally and viciously attached by the biotech industry. The industry literally tried to destroy him, Vlieger said.
A similar fate befell Seralini in France. When he reported massive tumors, organ damage, and reproductive problems in his long-term study of lab rats, the biotech industry mounted a furious attack despite the fact that he merely replicated the biotech industry’s own study in every detail but one—Seralini’s was was a lifetime study, not 90 days.

Bizarrely, the industry was in effect attacking its own study.

Nevertheless Vlieger is upbeat that the tide of public opinion is finally starting to shift. People are realizing that when we quit using GM seeds and chemicals and return to re-balancing and revitalizing the soil, the soil improves.

When we take away the GM feed, the animals improve. When we humans remove GM food from our diet, doctors report 100% of their patients improve, he said.

Vlieger likes to end his lectures with a quote from his friend and mentor Dr. Don Huber:

“Will future historians look back and write about our times, not about the pounds of pesticides we did or did not apply, but how willing we were to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive experiment we call genetic engineering, that is based on failed promises and flawed science, just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.”

The last slide in the lecture shows the image of Vlieger’s smiling 6-month-old granddaughter. “I'm doing this work for her,” Vlieger said.

 ------------------------
Charles Mish taught English, film, and journalism for 37 years at Edmonds Community College. Now retired, he and his wife Clarissa live in a solar home and grow biodynamic fruit and vegetables on Lopez Island.

GMO Fishy Tomato Car In Port Townsend - Videoblogging 206

GMO Fishy Tomato Car In Port Townsend - Videoblogging 206:


Today, at a press conference held in the parking lot of the Port Townsend Food Coop, Fishy Tomato Car driver Nancy Metcalf talked about the Fishy Fleet, GMOs, the misinformation campaign conducted by corporations in California last year to defeat a GMO labeling proposition, I-522, the Washington State initiative to label GMO foods that is on the November ballot and GMO health concerns.


Kathie Meyer, outreach coordinator for the Port Townsend Food Co-op, explains the research she has conducted on GMOs.
GMOs: The Trust Issue By Kathie Meyer


Rick Doherty, coordinator for the Jefferson County Grassroots Volunteers YES on I-522, explains a couple of the I-522 issues in the November election.


Lies, Dirty Tricks and $45 Million Kill GMO Labeling in California


Deceptive mailer mailed to California voters last year by Pro-GMO front group: Californians Vote Green

NOTE: The Fishy Tomato Car will return to Port Townsend on Friday, September 20 to promote the screening of the new film, "GMO OMG" at the 14th annual Port Townsend Film Festival (PTFF). The PT Coop is a co-sponsor of the PTFF screening of the film.


Charlie Bermant, Peninsula Daily News snaps a picture for his article: Port Townsend organic food outlets support GMO labeling

PR push by ag and biotech industries has a secret weapon: Moms : Business

Betsie Estes is a mother of two young kids who lives in suburban Chicago.

She’s also public relations gold.

Last week, Estes was in the audience at an annual biotechnology industry conference in Chicago, attended by the industry’s power players, Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., and its competitors, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, among them.

After the gathering, Estes jotted a few thoughts on her blog. (Twitter: @FieldMomBetsie, Super Suburbs)

“There’s a pervasive thought that the people who are anti-GMO are operating from a purely altruistic place,” she wrote. “But make no mistake, just as there is big money in biotech, there is big money in opposing the technology. Entire brands, both corporate and personal, have been developed around the concept that GM foods are bad.”

That’s the kind of message the industry wants to hear — that they’re not the bad guys — and it’s the Betsie Esteses of the “momosphere” who are, increasingly, being invited to convey it.

“Moms are really important because they’re the most influential consumers in the country,” said David Wescott, director of digital strategy with the public relations firm, APCO Worldwide. “They’re increasingly finding their own peers to be the most credible sources of information.”

So, what does an industry do when it wants to nudge public opinion in its favor? Find moms — preferably with blogs. (Facebook: Super Suburbs - Updated March 20, 2013)

Read More
PR push by ag and biotech industries has a secret weapon: Moms : Business

Monsanto: A Corporate Profile | Food & Water Watch

You know who Monsanto is. Even if you don’t recognize the company name, you’ve come across some of its products: maybe you’ve used Roundup weed killer on your lawn or garden, you’ve heard about the debate over treating cows with the artificial growth hormone rBGH, you’re worried about unlabeled genetically engineered organisms in your food, or you’ve learned about the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, maybe from family members, coworkers or friends who suffered the health consequences. These may not seem related, but they all are a major part of Monsanto’s legacy.

The agriculture and life sciences company that’s known today as Monsanto is only a recent development. Most of Monsanto’s history is steeped in heavy industrial chemical production — a legacy that is extremely at odds with the environmentally friendly, feed-the-world image that the company spends millions trying to convey.
Monsanto is a global agricultural biotechnology company that specializes in genetically engineered (GE) seeds and herbicides, most notably Roundup herbicide and GE Roundup Ready seed.GE seeds have been altered with inserted genetic material to exhibit traits that repel pests or withstand the application of herbicides.

In 2009, in the United States alone, nearly all (93 percent) of soybeans and four-fifths (80 percent) of corn were grown with seeds containing Monsanto-patented genetics.The company’s power and influence affects not only the U.S. agricultural industry, but also political campaigns, regulatory processes and the structure of agriculture systems all over the world.

Read Full Report
Download the PDF

OpEdNews - Article: NYT Editors Ignore GMO Health Dangers

By Stephen Lendman (about the author)

GMO foods and ingredients pose serious health hazards.

It doesn't surprise. Times policy is irresponsible. It's unprincipled. It's reprehensible. It's longstanding. It supports wealth, power and privilege.

It endorses what demands condemnation. It ignores GMO dangers. Doing so betrays its readers. More on that below.

GMO foods and ingredients are toxic. They're unsafe to eat. They harm human health. Independent scientific research proves it. Coverup and denial suppress what's vital to know.

 Read More
OpEdNews - Article: NYT Editors Ignore GMO Health Dangers

GMO tomato helps fight heart disease - The Grower

University of California, Los Angeles, researchers have used genetic engineering to develop a tomato containing amino acids that mimic the actions of good cholesterol when consumed.

An early study found that mice fed these freeze-dried tomatoes had less inflammation and plaque build-up in their arteries, according to a news release.

After the tomatoes are eaten, the amino acid group—known as an apoA-1 peptide—was active in the small intestine but not in the blood.

This suggested to researchers that focusing on the small intestine may be a new strategy to prevent atherosclerosis, which causes plaque build-up in arteries and can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
The peptide would be considered a drug if given as an injection or in a pill form. But when included as part of a plant, fruit or vegetable, it is no different than the same organism that hasn't been transformed.

 Read More
GMO tomato helps fight heart disease - The Grower

Moms Across America Founder: Label GMOs Because We Love Our Kids

Sustainable Pulse exclusive interview with Zen Honeycutt, Founder of Moms Across America, on their 4th July march against GMOs in towns across the US, children with allergies, Michelle Obama and much much more…

Why has Moms Across America decided to march to support GMO labeling on July 4^th in towns across the US?

Because we love our kids. And we are using our “Mom Common Sense”. Over 19 animal studies have shown grave health concerns such as tumors akin to breast cancer, infertility, sterility, birth defects, miscarriages, obesity and organ damage, inflamed stomachs and autism-like symptoms. A recent corn study shows alarming differences and toxicity. Thanks to Jeffrey Smith’s “Genetic Roulette” and Robyn O’Brien’s Ted Talk “Patriotism on a Plate” we now know that GMOs not only have a host of health concerns but also cause unpredictable, unforeseeable and uncontrollable mutations in living things. This is unacceptable to us Moms, we have enough to worry about with diapers and tantrums…mutations? Really?

Seriously though, July 4^th is our national day of celebrating our right to freedom. We are one of the only countries in the world that does not have the right to know what is in our food right now and we Moms have something to say about that. Home town parades make sense because everyone in town are there, it’s local, we can share in a fun way and the media cannot ignore us. In Carmichael, CA supporters marched in a 4^th of July parade in big vegetable costumes last year and had a great time. It’s all about connecting with our communities.

After the failure of Prop 37 in California what gives you hope that GMO labeling bills in other states will work?

Prop 37 was a win in many ways. Pamm Larry led the way for over 6 million people to vote yes in just a few months. That’s huge. We know that labelling in other states will work the supporters are committed and because we Moms are not backing down. We buy 85% of the food. And if we don’t buy it, they can’t sell it. So we say “No Label? Not on our Table!” Senators, manufacturers and retailers are beginning to get that we want labels. We have the right to know what we feed our children. Opposition may have a lot of money, but we have the gift of gab. Their wallets are not bigger than the love for our children.

Read More:
Moms Across America Founder: Label GMOs Because We Love Our Kids

USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan Resigns - Farm Futures

USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan Resigns - Farm Futures

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Thursday announced the resignation of USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan (Email, Twitter), praising her service but providing little insight into her departure.

"USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan has helped USDA achieve record results over the past four years. She has played a vital role in the Department-wide focus on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative (Playlist), as well as our efforts to achieve budget efficiencies and savings during an uncertain budget time," Vilsack said in a statement. "I deeply appreciate her service, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors."

Deputy Secretary Merrigan has led USDA's efforts to implement important regulations, and she has been an advocate for the National Organic Program, Vilsack added.

USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan resigns

According to her official USDA biography, Merrigan in 2009 became the first woman to chair the Ministerial Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Time magazine named Dr. Merrigan among the "100 Most Influential People in the World" in 2010.


Before becoming Deputy Secretary, Merrigan served for eight years as Assistant Professor and Director of the Agriculture, Food and Environment graduate program at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, Mass. She also served as Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, and for six years as a senior staff member for the Senate Ag Committee, working for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Vilsack did not indicate a timeline for Merrigan's departure.

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III | Buddhist Global Relief

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III | Buddhist Global Relief

Despite pervasive human intervention, the dynamism of the natural world overcomes virtually all artificial boundaries and limits.  We directly experience nature’s refusal to stay within the lines we draw. Plants penetrate concrete sidewalks; moving water inexorably surmounts or breaks through barriers; nature retakes land abandoned by humans.

Seed dispersal and plant cross-pollination are examples of this dynamic movement in the natural world.  In fact, the plant world depends upon it.   The notion that we can control genetically modified organisms requires a willful blindness to this fundamental fact of nature.

“Guilty by GMO Contamination”

Genetically modified crop seed can contaminate other crops. Seed movement, pollen flow and other causes result in “gene flow”, the transfer of genes from one population to another.  This occurs in a variety of natural ways: via birds, animals, flooding, or wind.  It can also result from human activities such as farm or seed cleaning machinery, spillage during transport, and other human errors throughout the production process.

Transgenic contamination cannot be recalled.  Genetically modified plants continue to reproduce where the seeds are sown or blown and where plants are pollinated. Their traits are passed on to subsequent generations of crops. They also reproduce in nature where genetically modified varieties can forever alter wild relatives, native plants, and ecosystems.

Part I
Part II

GMOs: simple ways to avoid them in your diet | PCC Natural Markets

GMOs: simple ways to avoid them in your diet | PCC Natural Markets

There are many reasons to choose foods without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — from the risks they pose to the environment to concern about their effects on consumer health. Despite industry claims, there is not a single commercial GMO crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance or enhanced nutrition.

Unlike many countries around the world, the U.S. does not require labeling of foods containing GMOs. That's troubling when you consider an estimated 60 to 70 percent of packaged food in mainstream grocery stores contain them. Assume a packaged food has GMOs unless it's clearly labeled otherwise.

Choose organic

This is the best way to assure your food is GMO-free. Genetic engineering (GE) is a prohibited method of production in organics, so foods labeled "certified organic" or "made with organic ingredients" cannot contain GE ingredients intentionally.

Whole Foods says it will require labels on genetically modified ingredients : Business

Whole Foods says it will require labels on genetically modified ingredients : Business

Monsanto referred questions Friday to the Food Marketing Institute, an industry trade group.

“If FDA wants to mandate this, we’d support it,” said Heather Garlich, an institute spokeswoman. “We don’t want a patchwork of laws.”

The biotechnology industry’s leading trade group, BIO, of which Monsanto is a member, echoed that position.

“If Whole Foods chooses to voluntarily label these products as GM for the consumers who shop at their store, that’s their choice — as long as those labels do not imply that those products are somehow unsafe or less healthy,” said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman, in an email Friday. “That would be scientifically inaccurate, to say the least, but certainly false and misleading.”

The biotechnology and food industries have long held that labeling would scare consumers away from genetically modified products, which have not been linked to any food safety or health issues. The American Medical Association, for one, has said there is no scientific justification for labeling genetically modified foods.

“Anti-technology activists and organic food companies are using labeling efforts as a step toward reducing GE (genetically engineered) technology,” said Batra, the biotech trade group spokeswoman. “Certainly we are concerned because this is a strategy that takes advantage of consumers by making them fearful of a technology that has enormous economic and environmental benefits.”

Whole Foods to require labels on genetically modified products - Los Angeles Times

Whole Foods to require labels on genetically modified products - Los Angeles Times

Whether such businesses are motivated by goodwill, the promise of profit from sympathetic consumers or the threat of impending legislation is unclear. But Whole Foods' move will be copied by competitors, said Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs for the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group.
"Clearly, they're going to be the first of many retailers who will require labeling as a condition of sale in their stores," he said.

But for now, tackling the crusade on genetically modified organisms will be tricky, said James Richardson, senior vice president of food research firm Hartman Strategy.

Other trends propelled by large retailers have the benefit of being easy to understand. The low-sugar push, the gluten-free movement and more "aren't hard to grasp and are tied to immediate, palpable concerns such as digestive health and weight," Richardson said.

Concerns about genetically modified food, however, are a fairly new phenomenon and are often steeped in complicated science. Until more companies choose to label products featuring modified DNA, the main consumer reaction to isolated efforts such as Whole Foods' order will be puzzlement, Richardson said.

"There's not a big interest among mainstream consumers in avoiding GMO because it requires them to have a fairly complex, intellectual sense of what it even means and why it's a problem," he said. "Sugar is much more terrifying than an abstract fear like that."

4 Potential Health Risks of Eating GMO Foods - Care2 Healthy Living | Care2 Healthy Living

4 Potential Health Risks of Eating GMO Foods - Care2 Healthy Living | Care2 Healthy Living

1. Allergies
Perhaps the number one health concern over GM technology is its capacity to create new allergens in our food supply. Allergic reactions typically are brought on by proteins. Nearly every transfer of genetic material from one host into a new one results in the creation of novel proteins. Genetic engineering can increase the levels of a naturally occurring allergen already present in a food or insert allergenic properties into a food that did not previously contain them. It can also result in brand new allergens we’ve never before known.
2. Antibiotic Resistance
Genetic engineers rely heavily on antibiotics to guide experiments. It works like this: Not all host cells will take up foreign genes, so engineers attach a trait for a particular type of antibiotic resistance to the gene they introduce into host cells. After they’ve introduced the gene into the cells, they douse all the cells with the antibiotic to see which ones survive. The surviving cells are antibiotic-resistant, and therefore engineers know they have taken up the foreign gene.
Overuse of antibiotics can potentially cause the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Several health organizations, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, have spoken out about the need for the use of these antibiotics to be phased out of the process of making GM foods. Food Patriot Sam Spitz’ harrowing story provides a scary, precautionary warning of how antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” can affect your health.
3. Pesticide Exposure
The majority of GM crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide resistance. Most are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they can be sprayed with Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide Roundup without being harmed. The idea is that if the crop itself is immune to Roundup, you can spray it to kill any weeds endangering the plant without worrying about harming your crop. Sound like a good thing? Only if increased human exposure to pesticides is a good thing. Glyphosate has been linked to numerous health problems in animal studies, among them birth defects, reproductive damage, cancer and endocrine disruption.
4. Unpredictability and the Unknown
Foreign genetic material in a host can cause other genetic material in that host to behave erratically. Genes can be suppressed or overexpressed, causing a wide variety of results. One consequence of overexpression, for example, can be cancer. Nutritional problems can also result from the transfer. In one example, cows that ate Roundup Ready soybeans produced milk with more fat in it. In another example, milk from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone was found by a number of researchers, including those published in the journal Lancet, to have substantially higher levels of a compound known as insulin-like growth factor-1, which is linked to human breast, colon and prostate cancers. The milk also has higher levels of bovine growth hormones in it, along with pus and sometimes antibiotics. GM crops have been linked to health problems as diverse as reproductive damage, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes. Concerned scientists have been outspoken about these risks.