October 05, 2005
Synthetics are not Organic!
Perhaps if you are like me, you peruse the isles of your supermarket scanning the thousands and thousands of items for product labels that read organic. Consumers buy organics for a myriad of health, environmental and ethical reasons. Some consumers are concerned about the routine use of toxic municipal sewage sludge as a fertilizer on conventional farms; others worry about filthy slaughterhouses, diseased feedlot animals, E. coli, salmonella, and fecal contamination; while other consumers buy organic as a way to promote the livelihoods of small family farmers.
Whatever their reasons, 13 million of the 106 million US households actively seek and support the organic industry. Wouldn’t they be horrified to find out that their organic labeled products were in fact made with synthetic substances? ...
While this is not the case yet, it is worth noting that several industry groups including the Organic Trade Association and Kraft Foods have recently lobbied Congress to amend the Organic Foods Production Act established in 1990. If amended synthetic substances would have been able to be used in food products labeled as "organic." Thankfully, the courts ruled in favor of the consumer’s right to know mandating that only natural ingredients can be labeled as organic.
What you need to know about US organic labeling law:
- 100 Percent Organic – is truly organic!
- Organic - at least 95% is of the product content by weight is truly organic
- Made With Organic - at least 70% of content is organic
- Less than 70 % of content is organic – the product label can only list ingredients that are organic
February 14, 2005
Ratifying the Bio-Security Law
With its successful passage through Mexico's lower house tomorrow, February 15, 2005 the decision on whether to ratify the revised Bio-Security Law will be made. The Bio-Safety Law is a controversial as it will allow for the introduction of genetically modified corn into Mexico.
According to activist, Talli Nauman "The issues it raises are about protecting native grain species to assure world food supplies and protecting local growers from domination by a handful of patent-wielding transnational seed companies.
For more information on the associated risks of biotechnology and the effects cross-contamination is having on remote Mexican corn fields click here here.
Posted by BETH |
Permalink
September 09, 2004
New Study shows Air Pollution causes significant damage to children's lungs
The first long-term study on air pollution's impact on children was released today. It shows significant damage in the lungs of children who live in polluted areas. Such children had similar lung capacities as those who live with a parent that smokes. Dr. James Gauderman of the University of Southern California, who conducted the study, said:
"This is some of the most convincing evidence that air pollution has chronic effects. We see the effects in all kids. And it's an unavoidable exposure. It's not like smoking, where you can advise people to stop."
He cited car exhaust as the number one source of air pollution. This study demonstrates the need for cleaner cars that will improve public health and reduce global warming.
Posted by MICHAEL |
Permalink
August 18, 2004
Farmers Losing Enthusiasm for GE Corn
Only 1/3 of total U.S. corn acres were planted with a genetically engineered, or GE, corn variety in 2004, according to a new nationwide survey conducted by the American Corn Growers Foundation (ACGF). This is much less than the 46 percent that had been expected.
Farmers in the U.S., where most genetically engineered foods are grown, are facing an increased risk of losing access to foreign markets as consumers abroad continue to shun genetically engineered products. “This survey suggests that U.S. corn farmers may well be taking the concerns and demands of foreign consumers and importers into account in their planting decisions by holding their GMO corn acres to only about a third of the total acres they planted to corn this year,� said Dan McGuire, CEO of the ACGF.
As farmers become increasingly disenchanted with genetically engineered foods, food companies may have greater flexibility to ask their suppliers to provide them with non-GE foods.
Posted by MICHAEL |
Permalink
August 13, 2004
Top Scientific Body Finds that Genetically Engineered Foods Deserve Further Scrutiny
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences provides further evidence that current U.S. regulations governing genetically engineered foods do not adequately protect public health and the environment from the serious dangers posed by them. The report, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects, acknowledges that testing crops for potential allergens should be done "in every case" and suggests various ways in which the current system could be improved.
This press release on the report from USPIRG (U.S. Public Interest Research Group) comments on the validity of the NAS conclusions. Richard Caplan, Safe Foods advocate for USPIRG, says that the NAS suggestions for improving the current system raise the question of why these foods were allowed on the market before they were proven safe:
"That NAS is offering important suggestions to improve the system when these foods are already on our dinner tables gives us cause for concern," Caplan noted.
The report demonstrates that the government is not doing enough to protect us from genetically engineered foods, and shows why companies that use these ingredients need to take action and phase them out of their products.
Posted by MICHAEL |
Permalink
July 28, 2004
Syngenta Leaving Britian and Moving to the U.S.
Rueters News Agency reported today that Syngenta will end its biotech crop research in Britain and move their operation to the United States, where the market for genetically modified crops is more favorable. Friends of the Earth (England) welcomed Syngenta's decision and said the company had misjudged the market for genetically modified crops in Britain and Europe.
The moving of Syngenta's biotech research and development to the United States is just another example of the U.S. welcoming corporate growth and profits despite potential health and environmental risks. Once again Britain and Europe lead the way in environmentally, when will the United States learn, when will we catch up?
Posted by BETH |
Permalink
July 20, 2004
Labor and Enviros Join Forces
It's nice to see local labor and environmental groups joining forces to demand an environmental impact report before ConocoPhillips is allowed to expand two oil refineries in Los Angeles. The government agency responsible for the case, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, has said there will be no impact, so no report is needed. But that doesn't make sense to people who live near the plants, including members of the pipe fitters union:
"It's kind of a mystery to us," [union] attorney Marc Joseph said. "This same project is being done at every refinery across the state and every other refinery had to prepare an environmental impact report ... which require those companies to install pollution controls. We are asking that this refinery be treated like every other refinery in the state."
The Pipe Fitters and
Communities for a Better Environment are taking ConocoPhillips and the AQMD to court to make sure these refineries
are treated like all the others.
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink
July 16, 2004
Cloud Wars
Who owns the clouds in the sky? It sounds like a silly question, and a few years ago it would have been. But just as the land is privately owned and water is increasingly privately owned, so now people have begun to fight over ownership of the clouds.
The use of cloud-seeding guns, rockets and planes to induce rainfall has created tensions between drought-plagued regions, which are competing to squeeze more drops out of the sky than their equally arid neighbours...Pingdingshan enjoyed a downpour of more than 100mm, but Zhoukou had to make do with less than 30mm. Meteorological officials in Zhoukou accused their counterparts in Pingdingshan of intercepting and overusing clouds.
(via
ecowire)
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink
July 02, 2004
Monsanto GE Food Update
Mafruza Khan of the Corporate Research Project provides a good update and overview on Monsanto's investment in genetically engineered foods.
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink
May 11, 2004
Monsanto Shelves Plan for GMO Wheat
Good news! Monsanto announced yesterday that it has canceled plans to market its genetically modified wheat. As the New York Times reports, the farmers weren't buying it because they knew they wouldn't be able to sell it.
Last month, over 1,000 Ecopledge members contacted Kraft to ask them not to buy Monsanto's GMO wheat. While we can't take credit for this victory, we are happy to be part of the worldwide movement of people who are just saying no to GMO. It's nice to know that our voices are being heard.
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink
April 28, 2004
GMO Food Concerns Raised at Kraft Annual Meeting
Kraft's annual meeting was the occassion for more questions about the company's continued use of genetically modified ingredients. Kraft has acknowledged that GMO foods pose health risks to its customers and the financial risks to its shareholders, but they continue to sell them and continue to refuse to label them. You can read U.S. PIRG's statement from the meeting, and take action here.
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink
April 16, 2004
GMO Soya Causing Problems in Argentina
The Guardian reports that farmers in Argentina are running into problems with Roundup Ready Soy. Monsanto designed this genetically modified wonder to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup (also produced by Monsanto). Not surprisingly, the super-soy is now spreading across Argentina, forcing farmers to use heavier applications of stronger herbicides to reclaim their land.
Let's hope American's take this as a lesson, starting with our friends at Kraft.
Posted by ANDREW |
Permalink