27 October 2017

Conventional dairy, which relies on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO crops, is poisoning Vermont’s water, degrading Vermont’s soil and contributing to global warming.  And yes, glyphosate was found in Ben & Jerry's ice cream.  What is glyphosate?  

Well, Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is an organophosphorus compound, specifically a phosphonate. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. It was discovered to be an herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E.  

Previous research has shown that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications

“Inactive” ingredients such as solvents, preservatives, and surfactants contribute to toxicity in a synergistic manner, and ethoxylated adjuvants in glyphosate-based herbicides have been found to be “active principles of human cell toxicity”

Cell damage and even cell death can occur at the residual levels found on Roundup-treated food crops, as well as lawns and gardens where Roundup is applied for weed control

Liver, embryonic and placental cell lines are adversely affected by glyphosate at doses as low as 1 ppm. GM corn can contain as much as 13 ppm of glyphosate, and Americans eat an average of 193 lbs of GM foods annually.

Referenced article: Business Insider

Ben & Jerry's — a brand famous for its quality and eco-friendly practices — is under fire after a test uncovered a controversial ingredient in its ice cream. 

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) found glyphosate, the main ingredient in weedkillers like Roundup, in 10 out of 11 samples of the company's ice cream flavors, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

While the levels of glyphosate were well below the legal limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Organic Consumers Association argues that any presence of the pesticide product is misleading and potentially dangerous. 

"It's time for Ben & Jerry’s to announce it will immediately begin transitioning to 100-percent organic," using zero pesticides in production, the OCA said in a post on its website. "Otherwise conscious consumers have no choice but to launch a national and, if necessary, international protest campaign and boycott."

The OCA has called for Ben & Jerry's to stop labeling its ice creams as "natural" because the brand's dairy cows consume genetically-engineered corn (the brand told the Times that it is working to find all-natural alternatives). Add-ins, such as peanut butter or cookie dough, containing ingredients that have been sprayed with the weedkiller may also be the source of the glyphosate in the ice creams, according to the Times. 

A Ben & Jerry's spokesperson said in a statement that the brand had not yet seen the results of the test, but could confirm that all ice cream flavors are safe to consume.  

"Even if the reported results are accurate, as the laboratory that conducted the test stated, a person would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings PER DAY to reach the limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)," the spokesperson said. 

The question of if glyphosate is dangerous to consume is still hotly debated. While the World Health Organization said in 2015 that the weed killer was "probably carcinogenic," Reuters reported in June that scientific data may not fully back that claim. 

Despite the continued debate, many customers simply do not want to have a herbicide ingredient in their food. Soon after the Times published its article on the OCA's ice cream test, the brand began receiving complaints and boycott threats on social media. 

Article link: Business Insider

Gregory's Story- Haiti- Agriculture

Monsanto Wants to Bury This FDA Report..well why?

Let's just take some weed killer and spray it on our salad shall we?  Yum!

Share this shocking new report with everyone you know….

A FDA-registered food safety laboratory tested iconic American food for residues of the weed killer glyphosate (aka Monsanto’s Roundup) and found ALARMING amounts.

Just to give you an idea of how outrageous these amounts are, independent research shows that probable harm to human health begins at really low levels of exposure – at only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate. Many foods were found to have over 1,000 times this amount! Well above what regulators throughout the world consider “safe”.

I am frankly shocked this information is not making front page news right now. Monsanto will do anything to bury this story… and as of right now, it’s working.

Not a single mainstream media outlet has covered this appalling new report that shows millions of people being poisoned by a chemical that does not belong in our food. 

This chemical is ending up in processed foods like Cheerios, Ritz Crackers, and Oreos and being consumed by humans across the world. The health of millions of people is on the line and this news must go mainstream! That’s why I’m calling on every single one of you who reads this post to share this breaking story now. The only way this injustice will be corrected is if enough of us stand up and demand that something be done to stop the poisoning of our food supply.

Share this shocking new report with everyone you know….A FDA-registered food safety laboratory tested iconic American food for residues of the weed killer glyphosate (aka Monsanto’s Roundup) and found ALARMING amounts.

• Independent research links glyphosate to cancer (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and it has been deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s team of international cancer experts. The childhood cancer rate is steadily rising and experts say that they don’t know why. Why are they not taking a closer look at these facts?

• Research also indicates that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, which disrupts hormones and leads to reproductive problems, early onset puberty, obesity, diabetes, and some cancers. When it comes to endocrine disruptors, very small exposures are the most damaging, so “the dose makes the poison” mantra does not apply!

• Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum antibiotic killing the good bacteria in your gut. Poor gut health is linked to inflammation and a whole host of diseases. As GMOs laced with glyphosate are commonly fed to farm animals, this could very well be contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

• It binds with vital nutrients in the soil (like iron, calcium, manganese, zinc) and prevents plants for taking them up. Glyphosate is thereby making food less nutritious!

Why is this weed killer in these foods? Even non-GMO and organic food! This chemical has gone so mainstream that glyphosate has infiltrated every facet of our environment – our water, air, soil.

• Many GMOs were invented to be resistant to glyphosate – and since GMOs have been introduced the use of glyphosate has gone through the roof! It is now the world’s most widely used herbicide.

• Glyphosate is not just used on GMOs. Conventional (non-organic farmers) use Roundup as a drying agent on crops, such as oats and wheat. It can’t be simply washed off, as it is taken up into the plant itself.

• As the active ingredient in popular “Roundup” herbicide, millions of people are using this stuff around their homes, and it’s widely used at parks and other public spaces.

So, that is why it’s not just GMO-filled junk food that is laced with glyphosate. It’s contaminating organic and non-GMO foods, and it’s even in our honey! The FDA quietly found it in almost every single sample of honey that they tested (from mass produced to organic mountain honey). The media has been essentially silent and barely anyone heard this news!

Even if you don’t personally eat the specific brands that were tested (I don’t), how many people are eating Cheerios and Ritz Crackers every day? A lot!

How many of your friends and family have their cabinets filled with these foods? These people need to know this information.There are still thousands of other brands and whole foods that have not been tested for glyphosate residues, so we can’t be so sure that our own organic, non-GMO, and unprocessed food is safe. Americans are effectively being forced to eat this poison until something is done to stop the rampant use of this chemical. Yes, I said poison.

Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know these findings for obvious reasons. They have our regulatory agencies in their back pocket to make sure they can continue to make a hefty profit while poisoning the masses.While there are now several manufacturers of glyphosate herbicides, Monsanto completely dominates the market and this is a best seller. They are raking in BILLIONS every year and certainly don’t want that to stop. They are clearly, without a doubt, using their prosperity to influence our government regulators. Why else would those entrusted to protect the public from harmful chemicals turn a blind eye to this?

Our public agencies are allowing corporations to poison Americans for profit.In 2013, the EPA massively increased the industry standard of what is considered a “safe” level of glyphosate on our food, in order to make enormous amounts seem A-OK. Instead of properly regulating, they effectively raised the “safe” level so that no one can blame the industry for poisoning us with unlawful amounts of chemicals. This is corruption at its finest. The EPA has a long and sordid history of doing whatever Monsanto wants and you have to ask yourself why this continues to happen and how we can make it stop.

The EPA continues to pander to Monsanto, as they keep postponing and dragging their feet to evaluate glyphosate’s link to cancer in humans. The industry is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that the EPA “evaluation” will be in their favor and is trying to control who will be on the panel. Why won’t the EPA do their job to make sure that the world’s most widely used herbicide isn’t causing us all to get cancer? Don’t you think this should be a top priority? It’s time for the EPA to put the public health above the corrupt desires of corporations.

When it comes to the FDA, they are not protecting the American public from glyphosate either. After announcing in February that they would FINALLY begin testing foods for glyphosate residues, they just decided to suspend their testing this week. Could it be that Monsanto didn’t like the results they started getting – especially since the FDA found glyphosate in foods that should be especially safe like BABY FOOD? Monsanto will do whatever it takes to keep that story out of the public eye.

Read full report here: Food Democracy Now 

Doesn’t the public deserve to know this information? It should be shouted from the rooftops!It is shameful that the American media has thus far failed to cover this breaking news, but WE HAVE THE POWER to make this information go viral. If you really want to stop the corruption perpetuated by Monsanto and the large chemical companies – this is how we shut them down!

CALL TO ACTION: Share this post with everyone you know. Tweet, share, and email this information to major media outlets and ask them to cover this story. Remember the best way to avoid glyphosate is by choosing certified organic foods because it is prohibited on organic crops. Although contamination is a real threat, the levels on organic foods are minimal compared to what’s been found on conventional foods. It’s been shown that people who eat organic foods have less glyphosate and other synthetic pesticides in their system.
The people of this country must be informed and this should be our top priority. Go, Food Babe Army, Go!

Xo, Vani

If by now you haven’t figured out that Facebook and Google are in cahoots with the corrupt government, then I feel for you, but for those who are well aware of the issues it’s high time you switched over to Seen.life. It is a website that is similar to Facebook but without all the censorship.

NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News

15 Harmful Effects of GMO Foods on Your Health

Fracking our Farms

(Photo Credit: “American Gasland,” artwork by River Side (marcellusprotest/Flickr))

Working the land is a difficult living. Rising costs and the encroachment of suburbs has led many farmers to seek out non-traditional sources of income. Leasing land to gas companies for hydro-fracking has become a potential lifeline for some.

Farmers who are in favor of fracking are facing opposition from environmental groups and sometimes even neighboring farms that might want to see the practiced banned. Some organic farmers are concerned with potential contamination from fracking activities that could threaten their livelihood by tainting their land.  

as much as 60 percentof land in one New York country has already been leased out. The Marcellus and Utica shale formations that are located upstate are thought to hold vast reserves of natural gas, and natural gas development is expanding.

A few farmers have become millionaires in best-case scenarios; others signed up quickly and receive only a small share of the overall royalties. Cornell researchers did, however, note that many leases are being obtained on the cheap.

Cornell professor Robert Oswald's study compared sickened wildlife to 'canaries in a coal mine.' (image credit:http://freelanceflaneur.blogspot.com)

The effects on fracking includes, possible tainted water in Wyoming, Ohio fracking caused earthquakes and may have caused some in the U.K., Hydro-frackers told the EPA that they use diesel - (what?), we may have less gas than we think, hydrofracking sickening animals and people

Below Reposted: Organic Consumer Association

A Tale
of Five Farming Families

Their names are Carol, Steve & Jackie, Susan, Marilyn & Robert, and Christine. They share a bond. Two bonds, actually: They all own, or owned, farms. And those farms, along with their own health and the health of their farm animals, have all been ruined by fracking.
 
More than 600,000 fracking wells and waste injection sites have popped up all over the country, according to ProPublica. The oil and gas industry, along with federal regulators, would have you believe that injecting trillions of gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth is harmless. Tell that to Jacki Schilke of North Dakota, who lost two dogs, five cows, chickens – and her health – after 32 oil and gas wells sprouted up within three miles of her ranch. Or Christine Moore, a horse rescuer in Ohio who sold her farm after a well went up five miles from her farm, creating an oily film on her water and making her too sick to care for her horses.
 
You’ve heard it before. No farms, no food. As one farmer said, “If they frack all the farms, there isn’t going to be any organic.”

With hundreds of thousands of fracking wells and waste injection sites in the U.S., it’s likely that our food supply already contains water, plants and animals (meat) contaminated with fracking chemicals. While we hear a lot about drinking water contamination, including people’s water catching on fire straight out of the faucet, that shouldn’t be our only concern. Contaminated crops and farm animals raised for food are also possible avenues for exposing humans to fracking chemicals.  

Of course, not all farm animals are destined for the food chain. Those unfortunate enough to live near fracking wells can tell us a lot about the potential danger from fracking chemicals to our own health. Farm animals have the same susceptibility to disease that we have, but because they are exposed continually to air, soil and groundwater, and have more frequent reproductive cycles, they exhibit diseases more quickly, presaging human health problems. A study involving interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling operations revealed frequent deaths. Animals that survived exhibited health problems including infertility, birth defects and worsening reproductive health in successive breeding seasons. Some animals developed unusual neurological conditions, anorexia, and liver or kidney disease.

What causes those health problems? Among the hundreds of toxic chemicals used in fracking are arsenic, benzene,ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, lead, toluene, Uranium-238. and Radium-226. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ list of common health problems from exposure to fracking chemicals includes autism, asthma, cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, infertility, birth defects, allergies, endocrine diseases and immune system disorders. 

Farmers fighting back
Thankfully, many farmers are fighting back.  Here are the tales of five farmers on the front lines of the fracking fight who are heroically sharing their tragic stories with the world in an attempt to expose the lie that natural gas is “cleaner power.” 

Carol French, dairy farmer and cofounder of Pennsylvania Landowners Group for Awareness and Solutions (PLGAS). Carol’s Bradford County farm is surrounded by nine gas wells. Earlier this month, Carol posted to the Fracking Hell Facebook group that she had just lost three calves in nine days. “I have heard from other farmers with ‘changed’ water having similar problems,” she wrote. At the September 2012, Shale Gas Outrage protest in Philadelphia, Carol told the crowd how, two weeks after their water changed, her daughter developed a fever and diarrhea that turned to blood. She lost ten pounds in seven days. Watch Carol’s speech. 

Steve and Jacki Schilke North Dakota ranchers. There are 32 oil and gas wells within three miles of Steve and Jacki’s 160-acre ranch. Jacki blames the wells for the loss of two dogs, five cows and a number of chickens, as well as the decline of her own health. Her symptoms began a few days after the wells were fracked, when a burning feeling in her lungs sent her to the emergency room. After that, whenever she went outside she became lightheaded, dizzy and had trouble breathing. At times, the otherwise fit 53-year-old, can’t walk without a cane, drive or breathe easily. She warns landowners against making deals with frackers: “They're here to rape this land, make as much money as they can and get the hell out of here. They could give a crap less what they are doing here. They will come on your property look you straight in the eye and lie to you.” Watch Jacki talk about her experience. 

Susan Wallace-Babb, Colorado rancher. One day in 2005, Susan Wallace-Babb went out into a neighbor's field near her ranch in Western Colorado to close an irrigation ditch. She stepped out of her truck, took a deep breath and collapsed, unconscious. Later, after Susan came to and sought answers, a sheriff's deputy told her that a tank full of natural gas condensate less than a half mile away had overflowed into another tank. The fumes must have drifted toward the field where she was working, the deputy said. The next morning Susan was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. Anytime she went outdoors her symptoms worsened. In 2006, she moved to Winnsboro, Texas, a small town two hours east of Dallas. In 2007, Susan testified in Congressional hearings on the health impacts of fracking. For three years her symptoms gradually improved, until she could work in her garden and go about her normal daily routine. Then, in early 2010, Exxon launched a project in an old oil field 14 miles away and began fracking wells to get them to produce more oil. Within months, Susan’s symptoms returned. Watch Susan’s testimony at the Congressional hearings.

Marilyn and Robert Hunt, West Virginia organic farmers. The Hunts own a 70-acre organic farm in Wetzel County, where they raise goats, chickens and cattle. When the landman from Chesapeake Energy approached the Hunts to lease their mineral rights, Marilyn did some research then turned down the offer. But that didn’t stop Chesapeake from, as she told ShaleReporter.com, “stealing gas from both sides of our property.” In 2010, Chesapeake received a permit for land disposal near her property and dumped waste on her land. “The water got little white flecks in it, and we started to get sick,” Marilyn said.  “We lost a whole lot of baby goats that got gastrointestinal disorders from drinking the water.” Some of the baby chicks her daughter was raising died of nervous system failure, and the ones that survived were deformed. Interestingly, though, the cattle that drink from the spring water on the highest point of her property were spared any adverse impact, leading Marilyn to believe it was the water contaminated by the fracking waste that caused the illnesses.

Christine Moore, Ohio horse rescuer. Christine Moore and her family lived a dream life rescuing horses deep inside Ohio’s Amish country. When a well was fracked five miles from her house in January 2012, Christine went door to door, begging her neighbors not to lease their land for fracking. But most of the town, many Amish and Mennonite, didn’t listen. Two months after the well near her home was fracked, the water went bad. An oily film formed across the surface of the water in her horses’ bowls. The water inside her home, pumped from her well and filtered through a softener, began giving her severe stomachaches. She sent her horses to a no-kill shelter in upstate Ohio and, in July, sold the property to her neighbor who, according to Tuscarawas County records, has oil and gas exploration leases on multiple properties. WatchChristine describe how fracking destroyed her horse farm. 

Related Article:
Questionable Economics of Shale and Gas

Prop 37 and the Future of Food by Michael Pollan

Vote for the Dinner Party: Is this the year that the food movement finally enters politics? By Michael Pollan New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2012 Straight to the Source One of the more interesting things we will learn on Nov. 6 is whether or not there is a "food movement" in America worthy of the name - that is, an organized force in our politics capable of demanding change in the food system. People like me throw the term around loosely, partly because we sense the gathering of such a force, and partly (to be honest) to help wish it into being by sheer dint of repetition. Clearly there is growing sentiment in favor of reforming American agriculture and interest in questions about where our food comes from and how it was produced. And certainly we can see an alternative food economy rising around us: local and organic agriculture is growing far faster than the food market as a whole. But a market and a sentiment are not quite the same thing as a political movement - something capable of frightening politicians and propelling its concerns onto the national agenda. California's Proposition 37, which would require that genetically modified (G.M.) foods carry a label, has the potential to do just that - to change the politics of food not just in California but nationally too. Now, there is much that's wrong with California's notorious initiative process: it is an awkward, usually sloppy way to make law. Yet for better or worse, it has served as a last- or first-ditch way for issues that politicians aren't yet ready to touch - whether the tax rebellion of the 1970s (Prop 13) or medical marijuana in the 1990s (Prop 215) - to win a hearing and a vote and then go on to change the political conversation across the country. What is at stake this time around is not just the fate of genetically modified crops but the public's confidence in the industrial food chain. That system is being challenged on a great many fronts - indeed, seemingly everywhere but in Washington. Around the country, dozens of proposals to tax and regulate soda have put the beverage industry on the defensive, forcing it to play a very expensive (and thus far successful) game of Whac-A-Mole. The meat industry is getting it from all sides: animal rights advocates seeking to expose its brutality; public-health advocates campaigning against antibiotics in animal feed; environmentalists highlighting factory farming's contribution to climate change. Read More

Agent Orange is Harmless: Vote Yes Prop 37

Agent Orange is harmless just like cigarettes and DDT are harmless, and...so are GMO foods harmless...so, why is Monsanto fighting so hard with 35 million in advertising to get voters to vote NO on Prop 37 in California?  Watch and share this video with the people in our country.

New GMO Agent Orange Soy Backed by USDA

Millions of pounds of herbicides are applied to crops around the nation each year. In one single year, 2006, 96.7 million pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on soybeans alone; this is a 20-fold increase from the 4.9 million pounds in 1994, the year before Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds were introduced. Well now, biotechnology giant and creator pesticides and herbicides, Dow AgroSciences is bringing forth brand new GMO soybeans and GMO corn to the market that will ultimately cause more herbicides than ever to be sprayed across the nation. What’s more, the USDA is all over the idea.

2,4-D Herbicide and Super GMO Crops

And perhaps even more startling than the drastic increase in herbicide usage is the fact that Dow AgroSciences’ new genetically modified soy is actually specifically designed to resist an especially toxic herbicide known as 2,4-D, a toxic compound used in the well-known Vitetnam War defoliant Agent Orange. Known to kill or maim at least 400,000 and cause an additional500,000 birth defects according to conservative Viatnamese estimates, Agent Orange is one of the deadliest concoctions on record.

As of now, biotech giant Monsanto still has a tight grasp on the corn and soybean market, with approximately 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn engineered to drown in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup. However, it seems that their control over this market may soon dwindle at rapid speeds, as Roundup is creating a whole new category of superweeds that are resistant to Roundup and the active ingredient in Roundup - glyphosate. These resistant weeds were expected by experts to cover at least 120 million hectares worldwide by 2010.

The solution up until now has been to simply spray more Roundup, but now Dow AgroSciences has come up with a new ‘solution’. Dow is creating new corn and soybean super-corps that are not only resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, but will also be able to withstand large amounts of the company’s aforementioned ‘agent orange’ herbicide, 2,4-D. This way, farmers will be able to apply both herbicides to their fields, with the super toxic 2,4-D killing what Roundup cannot.

That’s right, instead of turning to sustainable and environmentally-friendly farming practices to combat super ‘mutant’ bugs and mega-weeds, the biotech industry is making even stronger and more dangerous super herbicides and toxic recipes.

What Dow is very happy about (while disregarding public health) is that the USDA has shown interest in deregulating both products, with the most recent signaled approval being in early July for the GE soybeans. In fact, the USDA put out a key a document in the regulatory process for GMOs known as the Plant Pest Risk Assessment. Not surprisingly, the USDA’s assessment of Dow’s soy ended with “highly unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.”

So what will be the outcome of all of this? Millions of farmland acreage to be drenched in more herbicides by the millions of pounds. Unfortunately, the claim to safety for the new GE products don’t mean much, as both herbicides and GMOs are consistently shown to cause some form of damage, whether that damage be to the environment, human and animal health, or the biosphere as a whole. Dow’s 2,4-D herbicide, like glyphosate found in Monsanto’s Roundup, is already present in drinking water supplies, so individuals everywhere are already consuming the chemical. But now, exposure to this herbicide is more than likely to exponentially increase, only to cause more complications.

Additional Sources:

Environmental Health Perspectives

MotherJones

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-soy-agent-orange-2-4-d-herbicide/#ixzz252KTHYW9

Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA

Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA

The poison can drift up to 100 miles, and may be in your water! Action Alert!

Remember our article from February about the strain of corn that has been genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide 2,4-D, one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange? Here's the sequel: Dow AgroSciences has petitioned USDA for the deregulation of a new genetic... that is resistant to the same infamous herbicide. Agent Orange, you may recall, was used in Vietnam as chemical warfare, and devastated a generation of both the Vietnamese and the American soldiers who used it.

The USDA has already released a plant pest assessment stating that "the DAS-68416-4 soybean is highly unlikely to pose a plant pest risk." The agency's draft environmental assessment stated that their "preferred alternative" was to deregulate. Even so, we need to file our protests now. This will also lay the groundwork for possible later court action.

Deregulation of this toxic new soybean seed would be a financial boon for Dow. About half of all US farmland is planted in corn and soy, and about 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn are from Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds-that is, they've been engineered to withstand Roundup, Monsanto's herbicide. The problem, as we've noted before, is that "superweeds" are becoming resistant to Roundup. So Dow has genetically engineered a soybean that can withstand an even more toxic herbicide, 2,4-D, the Agent Orange ingredient. This gives Dow a chance to make a tidy profit and try to grab some of the market from Monsanto. 

This poison has been shown to get into drinking water, and has a tendency to drift up to 100 miles on the breeze. It has been shown to cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma and to act as an endocrine disruptor. It is carcinogenic, a neurotoxin, causes liver and kidney damage, and produces birth defects. Nor is there any research on how 2,4-D and glyphosate affect human and wildlife health in combination.

The Worst Farm Bill in History

Organic Consumers
email

Last week, the House Agriculture Committee rolled out its version of the Farm Bill (H.R.6083). We told you about Monsanto's latest line of attack on the few laws that actually protect "a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."

If you haven't already taken action to stop Monsanto's sneak attack, both in the House Farm Bill and the Monsanto Rider in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, click here.

Monsanto's attacks on the law's ability to protect farmers and consumers from unwanted, dangerous GMO contamination may be the boldest example of its power over Congress. But there's a lot more in the House Farm Bill that benefits biotechnology and Big Ag at the expense of family farmers and organic and sustainable food and agriculture. The House Farm Bill includes:

$16.1 billion in cuts to food assistance
Eliminates the Organic Certification Cost Share Program
Tens of billions in corporate welfare for the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses
$6 billion in cuts to programs to protect natural resources, invest in beginning and disadvantaged farmers, revitalize local food economies, and promote health and food security
Unlimited subsidies to mega-farms that continue to drive small family farmers out of business
Incentives for growers to drop conservation practices, plow up marginal areas and intensify fencerow-to-fencerow cultivation of environmentally sensitive land
Nearly eight times more support for corn, soy, cotton, rice and wheat than for healthy fruits, nuts and vegetables
Guts the common-sense rules that protect water quality and wildlife from agricultural pesticides
Undermines progress made at the state level for animal rights
Ends fair competition and contract protections for livestock producers
Tell Congress to fix this horrible Farm Bill!

Related Articles:


Monsanto: Above the Law? Video-Report
Farm Bill HR6083

Farm Bill HR6083

Tell Congress: No Free Pass for Monsanto!
By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director
Organic Consumers Fund, July 17, 2012

Urgent action is needed today! The House version of the Farm Bill contains a provision that would give Monsanto and the other biotech companies a free pass for new GMOs and the increased herbicide use they cause.
TAKE ACTION!...Urgent action is needed today!

Monsanto has launched a series of sneak attacks on organic and non-GMO farmers and consumers. They began by attaching a rider to the U.S. House of Representatives' 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would make it impossible for organic and non-GMO farmers and seed growers to defend themselves against GMO contamination. (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm)

The rider would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even when courts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally. According to the courts, this results in "the potential elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."

***Now, they've gotten a similar provision attached to the House version of the Farm Bill! ***

This even more dangerous provision would stop the EPA from reviewing new and expanded uses of pesticides (often caused by the introduction of new herbicide-resistant GMO crops) and require the USDA to make the approval of new genetically engineered crops easier and faster, limiting USDA review to 180 days.

While the USDA has never rejected a new GMO crop, public opposition, environmental concerns, and litigation to protect farmers have slowed new approvals. These Monsanto "riders" give Monsanto and the other biotechnology companies a free pass for new GMOs. According to the Center for Food Safety, these new riders would:

--Outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or any other environmental law, or by any other agency other than USDA.  For example, harm to protected species could occur without any input from our expert wildlife agencies.

--Prohibit other agencies from offering expert input in the review process and instead limit review to solely USDA under the PPA.  However, meaningful review would likely be eliminated by this rider, as USDA's analysis of potential harmful impacts is barred from informing any approval decision.  The agency is also barred from using its broader statutory authority granted in the PPA of 2000, and instead is limited to its old 1957 Federal Plant Pest Act authority.
 
--Force the backdoor approval of GE crops, even if USDA has not reviewed and approved them, through unreasonably short deadlines, which, if not met by the agency, would default to immediate approval and commercialization.  The provisions would also bar any agency funds be spent on impacts analysis beyond the riders' narrow and time-forced approval.

--Codify a dangerous national policy of allowing transgenic contamination in crops and foods, risking loss of GE-sensitive domestic and export markets and loss of biodiversity.

--Limit EPA's oversight of biotech crops engineered to produce or contain a pesticide by forcing the agency to choose the least burdensome choice for industry, regardless of environmental consequences.

(I included the text for the Bill below:  If you don't want to read all the mumbo jumbo, scroll down to the last section it will blow your mind)

Related Articles:

Monsanto: Above the Law? Video-Report
The Worst Farm Bill in History


Text of the Monsanto Farm Bill rider:

 SEC. 10011. PETITIONS TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

a)       PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. The Plant Protection Act is amended by inserting after section 411 (7 U.S.C. 7711) the following new section:


SEC. 411A. PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

a)      PETITION. A person may petition the Secretary for a determination that an organism that is subject to regulation by the Secretary as a plant pest under this Act is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

b)      REVIEW OF PETITION.

1.      ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REQUIRED.  In reviewing a petition submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct the following with respect to an organism that is the subject of the petition:

A.      PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. An assessment of the likelihood that such organism is a plant pest.

B.      ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. An analysis of any likely adverse effects of such organism on the soil, water, air quality, non-target organisms, and listed threatened and endangered species and the critical habitat of such species for the environment in which such organism is likely to be grown or otherwise used under the conditions specified in such petition.

2.      DETERMINATION. The Secretary shall issue a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for purposes of this Act if the Secretary determines, based on sound science and the plant pest risk assessment conducted under paragraph (1)(A), that an organism is not likely to be a plant pest.

3.      REVIEW PERIOD.

A.      INITIAL REVIEW PERIOD. Not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary determines that a petition submitted under subsection (a) is complete, the Secretary shall complete the plant pest risk assessment and the environmental analysis required under paragraph (1) and issue a determination with respect to such petition under paragraph (2).

B.      EXTENSION. The Secretary may extend the one-year review period referred to in subparagraph (A) for a petition for one additional period of not more than 180 days if the Secretary determines that additional review is necessary. The Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the petition, in writing, of the reasons for the extension and an estimate of the time period necessary to complete the review.

4.      EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET TIME PERIOD. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if after completing the plant pest risk assessment, but not the environmental analysis, required under paragraph (1), the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that an organism is a plant pest and does not grant or deny a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism within the time period required under paragraph (3), such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

5.      EFFECT ON PESTICIDE REGISTRATION.  In the case of an organism containing a plant-incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) with respect to which an application for registration of the plant-incorporated protectant is pending under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a et seq.), a determination made under paragraph (2) 10 that an organism is not a plant pest or the deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not be effective until the registration of the plant-incorporated protectant contained in such organism is approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 16 136a et seq.). If such registration is not approved, a determination made under paragraph (2) that an organism is not a plant pest or a deeming that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4) shall not become effective.

6.      SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. Notwithstanding a determination that an organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (2) or that such organism has been deemed not to be a plant pest under paragraph (4), the Secretary may issue a determination, based on information discovered after the date of such determination or the date on which the organism was so deemed and sound science, that an organism is a plant pest for purposes of this Act.

7.      PUBLIC NOTICE.

A.      NOTICE. The Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register of

i)                the grant or denial of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to an organism; or

ii)               the deeming that such organism is not a plant pest under paragraph (4).

B.      RISK ASSESSMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall provide to the person who submitted a petition under subsection (a), and make available to the public, the risk assessment and environmental analysis prepared under paragraph (1) with respect to such petition.

c)      APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED FOR PETITION TO DETERMINE ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST.

1.      EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS PERFORMED. Not withstanding any other provision of law, the environ mental analysis required under subsection (b)(1) and as specifically described in such subsection shall be the only analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism that is the subject of a petition submitted under subsection (a) required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such a petition.

2.      PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR OTHER ANALYSES. No funds made available by any Act shall be obligated, expended, or used for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism conducted for purposes of this section other than the environmental analysis required under subsection (b)(1).

3.      PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. The Secretary shall not require or solicit any financial assistance from a person submitting a petition under subsection (a) for any analysis or procedure regarding the effects on the environment of an organism or for any other analysis or procedure not specifically authorized by subsection (b)(1).

d)      USE OF DATA FROM PERMITS FOR PURPOSES OF PETITION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT AN ORGANISM NOT A PLANT PEST. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall use data collected under a permit issued by the Secretary under section 411(a) with respect to an organism, among other relevant data, for purposes of the review of a petition submitted under subsection (a) with respect to such organism.

b)      AUTHORITY OF REVIEW FOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO PERMITS. Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) is amended

1.      by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new subsections:

c)       LIMITATION ON ANALYSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the analyses or procedures required under the regulations issued by the Secretary under the Federal Plant Pest Act and continued in effect in accordance with section 438(c) shall be the only analyses or procedures required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a).

d)     ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in reviewing an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) that is not excluded from environmental review under regulations issued by the Secretary in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection (or any successor regulations), the Secretary shall conduct an environmental analysis described in section 411A(b)(1)(B). Such analysis shall be the only environmental analysis or procedure required or authorized by law with respect to reviewing and taking action on such an application.

c) TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

1. COMPLETENESS.

A.    COMPLETENESS OF PETITIONS. Not withstanding any other provision of law, including section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such petition to be complete and maintain the status such petition had in the process for the review of such petition on such date under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.

B.     COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including subsection (c) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) (as amended by subsection (b)), if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of such section (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section was complete before such date, the Secretary shall consider such application to be complete and maintain the status such application had in the process for the review of such application on such date under subsection (a) of such section.

2. USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

A.    USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of a petition submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to an organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under section 411A of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)) for purposes of a petition submitted under subsection (a) of such section with respect to such organism.

B.     USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use any environmental analysis conducted for purposes of an application for a permit submitted under subsection (a) of section 411 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711) before the date of the enactment of this section with respect to such organism to the greatest extent possible to complete the environmental analysis conducted under subsection (d) of such section (as amended by subsection (b)) with respect to such organism.

3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW OF CERTAIN PETITIONS.

A.    PENDING PETITIONS WITHOUT A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT. Notwithstanding section 411A(b)(2) of the Plant Protection Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the length of the period for the review of petitions submitted under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment of this section for which a plant pest risk assessment has not been completed on or before such date of enactment.

B.    PENDING PETITIONS WITH A COMPLETED PLANT PEST RISK ASSESSMENT.

i)      DEEMING OF CERTAIN PETITIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to each covered petition, if the Secretary finds that there is no reason to believe that the organism that is the subject of such covered petition is a plant pest and the Secretary does not grant or deny such covered petition not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, such organism shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

ii)     COVERED PETITION DEFINED. In this subparagraph, the term "covered petition" means a petition submitted before the date of the enactment of this section under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, for a determination that an organism is not a plant pest for which a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental assessment have been published and a notice and comment period on each assessment has been completed as of such date of enactment.

4. REGULATIONS. Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.


SEC. 10012. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

a)      RELOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE RELATING TO NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended

1.   by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and

2.   by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection:

 e) NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK.

1.      IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall establish a program to be known as the 'National Clean Plant Network' (referred to in this subsection as the 'Program').

2.      REQUIREMENTS. Under the Program, the Secretary shall establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and pathogen elimination services

A.    to produce clean propagative plant material; and

B.    to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material in sites located throughout the United States.

3.      AVAILABILITY OF CLEAN PLANT SOURCE MATERIAL. Clean plant source material produced or maintained under the Program may be made available to

A.    a State for a certified plant program of the State; and

B.   private nurseries and producers.

4. CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION. In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall

                  A.   consult with

                           i)      State departments of agriculture; and

ii)    land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and

C.      to the extent practicable and with input from the appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant centers.

b)      FUNDING. Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is amended

1.   in paragraph (3), by striking "and" at the end;

2.  in paragraph (4), by striking "and each fiscal year thereafter." and inserting "; and";        and

3.  by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

         "5. $71,500,000 for fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.".

c)      REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION. Section 10202 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is repealed.

d)      CLARIFICATION OF USE OF FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as amended by subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

g)     RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW. The use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).

SEC. 10013. AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF PLANTS.

a)      REGULATION OF PLANTS UNDER PLANT PROTECTION ACT. Subject to subsection (b), any living stage of a plant, including any nucleic acid or other genetic material as contained in such plant, shall be exclusively subject to regulation under statutes under which the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue regulations with respect to plants, including the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

b)      REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. A pesticidal substance contained in a plant shall be subject to regulation as a plant incorporated protectant (as defined in section 174.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

c)      REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. The regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), including section 3(c)(1)(C) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(C)), section 3(c)(2)(A) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)), section 7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136e), section 8 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136f), section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136g), and section 17 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136o), shall

1.      be based on sound science;

2.      use the least burdensome requirements; and

3.      provide for exemptions from the requirements otherwise applicable to pesticides that are not plant-incorporated protectants.

d)      DEFINITIONS. In this section:

1.      PLANT. The term "plant" has the meaning given such term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702).

2.      PESTICIDAL SUBSTANCE. The term "pesticidal substance" means a substance or a mixture of substances that

A.   is contained in any living stage of a plant that

i)      as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, is subject to part 340 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations; or

ii)    has been determined not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(2) or deemed not to be a plant pest under section 411A(b)(4); and

B.    is intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.


SEC. 10014. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report on the measures taken and proposed to be taken by the Secretaries and the Administrator to provide for balanced and appropriate regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology products, by

1.      reducing regulatory burdens on research conducted by academic institutions, small businesses, and public entities in developing lower-cost plant and animal sources of food, feed, fuel, and fiber developed through biotechnology, with special emphasis on minor use crops, orphan crops, and sources of protein;

2.      identifying categories of products developed through biotechnology for which a history of safe use has been established and providing with respect to such products reduced data requirements, expedited review periods, exemptions from regulation, and other measures, as appropriate, based on sound science; and

3.      developing and implementing a cohesive national policy for the low-level presence of agronomic biotechnology material in crops, including grain and other commodity crops, for food, feed, and processing.