September 17, 2012

GE News: Uneasy allies in the grocery aisle

Cuatro Caminos Collective
ivcaminos@gmail.com
707-595-0757

From: Ecological Farming Association <info@eco-farm.org>
Sender: "Ecological Farming Association" <info=eco-farm.org@mail24.us2.mcsv.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:16:29 +0000
To: Cuatro<ivcaminos@gmail.com>
ReplyTo: Ecological Farming Association <info@eco-farm.org>
Subject: GE News: Uneasy allies in the grocery aisle

Receive the latest news about genetically engineered foods. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
The Genetic Engineering News is produced by the Ecological Farming Association
and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.  

Click here to sign up for this news list and other news from EFA.


Comments from GMwatch.org:
This New York Times article notes that, "The European Union has required such biotech labeling since 1997, and companies by and large have formulated their products so that they do not contain any genetically engineered ingredients and thus do not need labeling. Also, David Byrne, the former European commissioner for health and consumer protection, has said that there was no impact on the cost of products."

That point has been reinforced by Professor Chris Viljoen, a GM testing expert, who says, "There has never been a documented report that genetic modification labelling has led to a cost increase in food anywhere."
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13084

 


Uneasy allies in the grocery aisle

By Stephanie Strom
This article was originally published in the New York Times on September 13, 2012.  

Giant bioengineering companies like Monsanto and DuPont are spending millions of dollars to fight a California ballot initiative aimed at requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. That surprises no one, least of all the proponents of the law, which if approved by voters would become the first of its kind in the nation.

But the companies behind some of the biggest organic brands in the country - Kashi, Cascadian Farm, Horizon Organic - also have joined the antilabeling effort, adding millions of dollars to defeat the initiative, known as Proposition 37.

Their opposition stands in sharp contrast to smaller, independent organic companies, which generally favor labeling products that contain genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s. And it has raised a consumer reaction on social media that has led some of the organic brands to try to distance themselves from their corporate parents.

"We want to be clear that Kashi has not made any contributions to oppose G.M.O. 
labeling," the brand said in a statement issued late last month after its Facebook page was inundated with comments from consumers saying they would no longer buy its products because its corporate owner, the Kellogg Company, has put more than $600,000 into fighting the ballot initiative.

But as recently as last week, consumers were still peppering the sites of Horizon, owned by Dean Foods; the J. M. Smucker Company, which has a number of organic products, and Kashi with expressions of betrayal and disappointment. "It is unconscionable for you to be funding the effort to defeat Proposition 37," one post said.

"Consumers aren't always aware that their favorite organic brands are in fact owned by big multinationals, and now they're finding out that the premium they've paid to buy these organic products is being spent to fight against something they believe in passionately," said Mark Kastel, a co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog and farm policy group that has been tracking corporate contributions in the ballot fight. "They feel like they've been had."

The uproar highlights the difference between large organic brands that have driven the double-digit growth of the organic market and the smaller, independent businesses and farms that most shoppers envision when they buy an organic peach or shampoo - companies like Nature's Path, one of Kashi's largest competitors.

Although certified organic products are prohibited by law from containing genetically engineered ingredients, organic companies generally favor the labeling law, contending that consumers have a right to know what is in the products they buy. What is left unsaid is that it may also be a marketing advantage for organic companies, distinguishing them from conventional food producers.

The parent companies, among them Kellogg, General Mills, Dean Foods, Smucker's 
and Coca-Cola, declined to talk about their opposition to the labeling initiative, which is on the November ballot, referring questions to Kathy Fairbanks, the spokeswoman for the No on 37 campaign.

Last week, the organization released a study it had commissioned that estimated the initiative would add $1.2 billion in costs for California farmers and food producers. Ms. Fairbanks said that the higher costs could add as much as $350 to $400 to an average family's grocery bill.

In addition, she said, the opponents believe the labeling would heighten what they call unfounded concerns about the safety of genetically engineered crops.

The European Union has required such biotech labeling since 1997, and companies by and large have formulated their products so that they do not contain any genetically engineered ingredients and thus do not need labeling. Also, David Byrne, the former European commissioner for health and consumer protection, has said that there was no impact on the cost of products.

But for more than a decade in the United States, most processed foods like cereals, snack foods and salad dressings have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory. Regulators and many scientists say they pose no danger.

Americans, however, are becoming much more aware of the role that food plays in their health and well-being, and consequently want much more information about what they eat, including whether it contains genetically engineered ingredients as well as salt and trans fats. So far, opponents of Proposition 37 have committed roughly $25 million to defeat it, with the largest contributions coming from Monsanto ($4.2 million) and DuPont ($4 million), which have made big investments in genetically engineered crops.

Several food companies are not far behind. PepsiCo, Nestlé, ConAgra Foods and Coca-Cola, which owns the Odwalla and Honest Tea brands, have each put more than $1 million in the fight, while General Mills, which owns organic stalwarts like  Muir Glen and Cascadian Farm as well as popular upstarts like Lärabar and Food Should Taste Good, has spent more than $900,000.

"We believe labeling regulations should be set at the national level, not state by state," General Mills said in a statement on its Web site.

Supporters of the measure thus far have mustered only $3.5 million from donors like Organic Valley, which has given $50,000, and Clif Bar and Amy's Kitchen, which each have put in $100,000.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods, the retail mecca of the organic and natural foods movement, said it supported the California proposal, though with some reservations over the details - and without putting any money into the effort in accordance with its policy, a spokeswoman said.

Nature's Path, an independent business, has put more than $600,000 into supporting the ballot initiative - even though it is a Canadian company. Some 70 percent of its sales and most of its production take place in the United States, said Arran Stephens, president of the company, but that is not why it is one of the biggest supporters of Proposition 37.

"We get to know what the salt content of our food is and the nutritional content, and producers have to state whether there are preservatives in it," Mr. Stephens said. "But in the case of genetically modified organisms and whether they are in a product or not, we don't know."

Ronnie Cummins, founder and national director of the Organic Consumers Association, which represents some 850,000 members, said he expected the food  and biotech companies that oppose the measure to spend roughly twice what they  have already contributed by the time of the Nov. 6 election.

Nonetheless, Mr. Cummins said he expected it to pass. In a poll of 800 likely California voters in July by the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University, 64.9 percent said they were inclined to vote in favor of Proposition 37 based on their knowledge at that time.

"The more ads they put out, the more they remind people that they're already eating foods with G.M.O. ingredients in them," he said.

Brand experts say the companies also risk tarnishing the very brands that they have worked so hard to keep separate from their conventional businesses, if at all possible keeping their corporate ownership to microscopic print buried somewhere on a Web site.

"In a world where everyone can see everything, you can't have silos any more, you can't have one side of the company doing one thing and the other doing something else," said Allen P. Adamson, managing director at Landor Associates. "People will look for inconsistencies and call you out on it."

The Organic Trade Association supports labeling food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients even though two of its board members are from companies - Dean Foods and Smucker's - that oppose the California ballot measure.

Christine Bushway, the association's executive director, said the issue was fairly clear-cut for the organization, since genetically modified organisms are banned from organic foods. "Our question has always been, if companies don't feel that G.M.O.s are in any way an issue for consumers, what is the concern about putting them on the label?" Ms. Bushway said.

She said that as a trade association, the organization did not typically put money into campaigns.

Just Label It, an organization that has fought for genetically engineered labeling nationally since 2011, came out in support of the ballot measure on Wednesday - but it also will not put money into the fight. Gary Hirshberg, the campaign's chairman and also chairman of Stonyfield Farm, the organic dairy brand now owned by Dannon, said his organization had already used much of its resources by the time the California initiative got under way.

"To be candid with you, I understand exactly what they're trying to accomplish, and I'm supportive of their goal, but I don't believe that in the long run we can solve a problem like this on a state-by-state level," Mr. Hirshberg said. "Even if California succeeds, and we hope it does, there is still a national policy question before us."

Others say that the reason the food and biotech companies are investing heavily to fight the ballot measure in California is because that market is so large that it would effectively cause them to adopt labeling or reformulate their products nationally. "That's why they are fighting this so hard," Mr. Kastel said.

A version of this article appeared in print on September 14, 2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Uneasy Allies in the Grocery Aisle.

 


The GE News Service is aggregated and distributed by EFA Board Member Thomas Wittman.  Thomas created this service in 1991 to provide the latest news about genetically engineered foods and the movement advocating for labeling and public awareness.  To contact Thomas, email genews@eco-farm.org.

The Ecological Farming Association nurtures healthy, just food systems and communities
by bringing people together for education, alliance building, and celebration.  
To learn more, visit www.eco-farm.org.

Donate to EFA 
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Copyright © 2012 Ecological Farming Association, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in on our website.

Our mailing address is:
Ecological Farming Association
2901 Park Ave. D-2
Soquel, CA 95073

Add us to your address book

September 13, 2012

Fw: Occupy Monsanto blockades Monsanto seed distribution facility, shuts it down

Cuatro Caminos Collective
ivcaminos@gmail.com
707-595-0757

From: Ecological Farming Association <info@eco-farm.org>
Sender: "Ecological Farming Association" <info=eco-farm.org@mail279.us2.mcsv.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:11:37 +0000
To: Cuatro<ivcaminos@gmail.com>
ReplyTo: Ecological Farming Association <info@eco-farm.org>
Subject: Occupy Monsanto blockades Monsanto seed distribution facility, shuts it down

Receive the latest news about genetically engineered foods. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
The Genetic Engineering News is produced by the Ecological Farming Association
and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.  

Click here to sign up for this news list and other news from EFA.


Dear Readers,
This is so amazing - people all over the world are helping us to finally get GE foods labeled here in the US, one of the last hold outs.  It is incredible to me that our nation still is hiding the fact that our food supply has been polluted with ingredients (GMOs) that we have a right to know about.  Maybe we are the last great market for this technology that helps no one except the corporations that make them and may cause a national health disaster beyond belief.  As more studies come out it is becoming clearer that we need seperation of these foods.
Thank you Occupy Monsanto!

Onward,
Thomas


 

Occupy Monsanto blockades Monsanto seed distribution facility, shuts it down
 

This article was originally published by Occupy Monsanto on September 12, 2012.
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/occupy-monsanto-blockades-seminis-seed-distribution-facility-shut


On Wednesday, September 12 the Genetic Crimes Unit (GCU) shut down shipping and receiving access points at Seminis's Oxnard seed distribution facility, which is 
a subsidiary of Monsanto and located at 2700 Camino Del Sol. By peacefully 
blockading the exit and access points the group effectively shut down the 
distribution of genetically engineered (GMO) seeds for a day.

Monsanto is the largest producer of GMO seeds and is being called out for their 
genetic crimes by a network called Occupy Monsanto. Today's protest is the 
beginning of a series of over 65 different autonomous actions that officially 
start on September 17, a year since Occupy Wall Street movement began. Actions 
are planned throughout the world including the US, Germany, Canada, India, 
Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Argentina, Australia, Russia, and Japan. More 
info as well as video available for media use of today's action can be found at 
http://Occupy-Monsanto.com

After occupying all three shipping and receiving entrances to the Seminis 
facility using flashy theatrics including a car with a giant "fish-corn" on top 
of it and a 6-foot high jail cell complete with someone dressed up like the CEO 
Hugh Grant of Monsanto inside. Eventually the fire department was called in and 
anti-GMO activists were arrested and charged.

"The reason I am occupying Monsanto and willing to put myself at risk of arrest 
is because Monsanto has genetically engineered food crops to contain novel 
untested compounds that result in more weed killer sprayed on our food, without 
informing consumers. Unlike most industrialized countries including every 
country in Europe, Japan and even China, in America right now there are no 
labels on our food informing us whether we are eating GMOs or not. We have a 
right to opt out of this experiement: it's not up to chemical companies what I 
feed myself and my family. Monsanto has bought and sold both parties and has 
handpicked henchmen at FDA and USDA making sure we are kept in the dark. 
Monsanto is also currently fighting the California Prop 37 GMO labeling 
initiative that would give consumers the right to know if they are eating GMO 
foods," said GCU member Ariel Vegosen.

The GCU arrived onsite wearing bio-hazmat suits and with giant banners saying 
the "99% V. Monsanto" and "Seminis and Monsanto bringing weed killer GMO food to 
your table." Next week there will be more protests all over the nation.

"In the name of Wall Street profits, chemical corporations such as Monsanto 
genetically engineer crops to withstand high doses of their toxic weed killers 
that contaminate our food and water, and have not been proven safe. We deserve 
to know what we are eating and we should put the GMO crops back in the lab and 
off the kitchen table.  The US chemical lobby has so far made sure Americans are 
kept in the dark and we are tired of inaction by Obama," said GCU unit member 
Rica Madrid.

"We are here today in civil disobedience because we believe strongly that we 
have no other option," said GCU unit member David Pillar. "It's time for healthy 
food now."

On Sept. 17, 2012 Occupy Monsanto is calling for hundreds of actions 
internationally, http://Occupy-Monsanto.com
 
 


The GE News Service is aggregated and distributed by EFA Board Member Thomas Wittman.  Thomas created this service in 1991 to provide the latest news about genetically engineered foods and the movement advocating for labeling and public awareness.  To contact Thomas, email genews@eco-farm.org.

The Ecological Farming Association nurtures healthy, just food systems and communities
by bringing people together for education, alliance building, and celebration.  
To learn more, visit www.eco-farm.org.

Donate to EFA 
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Copyright © 2012 Ecological Farming Association, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in on our website.

Our mailing address is:
Ecological Farming Association
2901 Park Ave. D-2
Soquel, CA 95073

Add us to your address book

September 04, 2012

Fw: In a surprising contradiction, Nestle official says GMOs aren' t necessary

Cuatro Caminos Collective
ivcaminos@gmail.com
562-448-2619

From: Thomas Wittman <info@eco-farm.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
To: <ivcaminos@gmail.com>
ReplyTo: info@eco-farm.org
Subject: In a surprising contradiction, Nestle official says GMOs aren' t necessary

EcoFarm Logo


Genetic Engineering News List

The Genetic Engineering News is produced by Thomas Wittman and the Ecological Farming Association, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.  Please pass this vital information on.  If you would like to get on this list go to www.eco-farm.org and select Newsletters.

Follow us on Twitter

Find us on Facebook
In a surprising contradiction, Nestle official says GMOs aren't necessary
Though the corporate giant has donated more than $1M to fight GMO labeling, a
senior exec says we don't need modified foods

August 30, 2012
By Clare Leschin-Hoar
TakePart.com

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/30/nestle-and-gmos

Overhearing someone say genetically modified crops aren't the solution for
feeding a planet ready to burst with 9 billion hungry mouths by 2050 isn't
surprising if it comes from a leader in the organics crowd. But it's positively
jaw-dropping when you hear it coming from a high-ranking corporate executive at
Nestle.

"Genetically modified (GM) food is unnecessary to feed the world and the food
industry would reap more benefits from using resources more sustainably and
employing other techniques. That's the view of Hans Johr, corporate head of
sustainable agriculture at Nestle and honorary president of SAI Platform, a
group of top global food and drink manufacturers working to improve supply chain
sustainability," writes Rod Addy for Food Navigator.

Johr wasn't talking about some of the traditional arguments against genetically
modified crops-like emerging superweeds, pest resistance, lack of long-term
studies on human health, or necessary increases in pesticide and herbicide use
due to resistance issues. Nope. Johr is talking about water. It's an issue that
concerns him, and with good reason. Nestlé purchases produce directly from more
than 680,000 farmers across the globe.

And, as we mentioned the other day, water availability is emerging as the
critical issue in how we're going to feed a burgeoning planet. Johr says if
water issues are addressed, the benefits will outweigh anything the genetic
modification of crops could offer.

Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment (IonE) at the
University of Minnesota and co-author of a study released Wednesday on water
management and yield production, agrees with Johr that GMOs are not the answer
to food security.
 
"I don't think GMOs have contributed, or will likely contribute much, to food
security. Most of the GMO traits are focused on pest and herbicide resistance,
which is arguably a good thing, but are not improving yield characteristics all
that much (at least compared to conventional breeding, or better yet,
marker-assisted breeding). Furthermore, there are other approaches to managing
pests and weeds that would be equally (or more) effective, like not planting
such large monocultures in the first place," Foley tells TakePart.

Johr also went one step further, and addressed the issue of labeling.

"We [Nestle] have a very simple way of looking at GM: listen to what the
consumer wants. If they don't want it in products, you don't put it in them,"
Johr told Food Navigator.

Except, the funny thing is, no one seemed to have clued Nestle USA in on that
stance.

According to records kept by the California Secretary of State, Nestle USA made
four separate donations to the No on 37 Coalition, fighting against the labeling
of GMO ingredients in California. In a seven-week period, the company gave
nearly $1.17 million to prevent the measure from passing.

Nestle USA did not respond to our requests for comment.

Maybe that kind of corporate policy takes a while to trickle down, or perhaps
Johr was only speaking about countries with existing labeling laws. Nestle's
official policy on GM ingredients says: Provided their safety is proven, as
required for all ingredients, Nestle will continue to use ingredients derived
from genetically modified crops wherever appropriate.

Either way, at least someone at the world's biggest food and drink company (by
revenue) is seriously talking about these issues, and in a public way. It's a
start, and we'll take that.
This email was sent to ivcaminos@gmail.com by info@eco-farm.org |  
Ecological Farming Association | 406 Main Street, Suite 313 | Watsonvillle | CA | 95076

Cuatro Caminos Calendar