NEW YORKERS: Your calls are needed now.

Monsanto's Dream Bill, aka the DARK Act (S. 2609), would ban states from requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs) and create a sham labeling scheme that will allow companies to hide information about whether GMOs are in their products. Please call and let our Senators know that you oppose this legislation.

Your tens of thousands of calls and emails have held back Monsanto so far this year — but they are desperate to pass this bill.

This bill they want to pass would put a “QR code” on packaging. You’d have to have a smart phone to use the code and you’d have to spend time at the market looking up the code to see what the ingredients are. Most seniors and many poor people don’t have a smart phone and/or can’t afford one. Let our Senators know that you want genetically modified ingredients labeled on the package and that states should have the right to set their own rules for gmo labelling. State that you oppose the Dark Act.

Vermont has passed this legislation and it is going into effect July 1st. This is why the bought-off Senators Stabenow and Roberts is pushing this bill for Big Ag so they can hide what is in our food. No matter which side of the fence you are on, we all want to know the ingredients we are feeding our families. A quick call to these phone numbers will get you a staff person and you just let them know what you think and they will ask for your zip code. Takes just a minute to do.

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer:
Call him: (202) 224-6542
Email him:

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand:
Call her: (202) 224-4451
Email her:

Betrayed By Our Own: Just Label It, EWG, Whole Foods and The Organic Trade Association Are No Better Than Biotech, Sold Out Safe Food Movement

In news that should surprise no one, Monsanto and the GMA have been lurking on the Hill for the last several weeks, writing checks and bribing senators in hopes of stopping Vermont’s impending mandatory, GMO-labeling bill.

It seems their efforts have literally paid off...

Food Movement Opposes “Backroom Deal” on GMO Labeling

Coalition of 70 groups condemn “compromise” bill that would keep the public in the dark

Coca-Cola May Pull Products From Vermont to Comply With GMO Law

Consumers Union Opposes New Senate GMO Labeling Proposal

“This deal is unacceptable to the nine out of ten Americans who support mandatory GMO labeling. Consumers deserve to know what’s in their food and to be able to make informed decisions. They have been clear that they want straightforward GMO labels that they can read and understand at a quick glance when shopping. This law would instead allow GMO disclosure to be done through scannable codes, phone numbers, or websites – making it difficult, if not impossible for the average consumer to find out what they want to know as they try to decide which kind of cereal or snack to buy.

“While we appreciate efforts by Senator Stabenow and others to seek a better bill than the one passed by the House last summer, this deal does not meet consumer needs. QR codes, 1-800 numbers, or websites aren’t a solution. The new Senate bill is just another way to allow companies to keep consumers in the dark – especially the one-third of Americans who don’t own a smartphone and those in rural areas without reliable broadband service.

Russian State Duma Passes Total Ban on GMO Crops and Animals

This strength shown by the Russian government was also shown early in 2016 when they dealt a huge blow to U.S. farmers, by banning all imports of U.S. soybeans and corn due to microbial and GMO contamination.


"This is organic grade, non-GMO corn," one European trader
said. "I think we could see more purchasing like this as sales
of organic foods in the United States increase."

Glyphosate: The Pesticide Industry Keeps the Data Secrecy Scandal Going in the Name of ‘Investment Protection’

New Interview with Dr. Don Huber

B: “How are you able to be a leading voice of anti-gmo and anti-glyphosate and hold a position at a major university? It seems like it’s hard to do that these days.”

H: “Well, I’m retired, that makes a big difference. A young professor would have extreme difficulty in surviving in the environment as we find it in academia today.”

B: “So the fact that they can’t fire you gives you the power to speak the truth.”

H: “Right, at least it’s a major incentive…”

Roberts, Stabenow reach deal on GMO labeling

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2016 - A landmark Senate agreement on national disclosure standards for genetically engineered foods would allow companies to disclose GMO ingredients through digital codes rather than on-package language or symbols.

The agreement, reached between Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, also would use a narrow definition of genetic engineering that would exempt the newest biotech methods such as gene editing from the national disclosure standards.

Both the definition and the option for digital codes rather than on-package labeling represent major victories for farm interests, biotech developers and food companies that have long resisted mandatory GMO labeling out of fear that it would stigmatize the technology.

The legislation, which will need 60 votes to pass the Senate, would nullify Vermont's first-in-the-nation GMO labeling law, which takes effect July 1, and would bar any other state from enacting labeling requirements that differ from the federal standards.

Under the legislation, most food companies would have the option of disclosing GMO ingredients through either a digital, smartphone code, the industry's preference, or through an on-package symbol or language that the Agriculture Department would approve. The code would be accompanied by: “Scan here for more food information.”
Better Food Better World

Small companies would have the option of putting a phone number or website URL on labels instead of the digital code.
The Vermont law requires products with biotech ingredients to be labeled as produced or partially produced with genetic engineering. Such text would be optional under the Roberts-Stabenow deal.

The definition of genetic engineering, or “bioengineering,” would be restricted to traits developed through recombinant DNA techniques, which involve transferring a gene from one organism to another. Techniques such as RNA interference and gene editing would be exempt.

Roberts said the disclosure system would protect biotech products from being denigrated by opponents. “We saved agricultural biotechnology,” said Roberts.

Stabenow called the bill a “win for consumers and families. For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.”

USDA issued a statement applauding the agreement. “It is our hope that their colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives recognize the difficulty of their work, and the importance of creating a path forward. The most impressive outcome of their agreement is that this measure encompasses over 24,000 more products than the Vermont law, which should assure people that this measure can be transparent without sending the wrong message about the safety of their food options.”

The agreement is the result of months of on-and-off negotiations that followed the failure of a committee-passed bill to pass the Senate in March when a motion to advance the measure failed, 48-49, well short of the 60-vote majority needed.

The big question now, besides whether there will be enough Democratic support for the agreement, is when the Senate and House will act on it. The Senate is unlikely to vote on the legislation until next month because it is tied up with pending appropriations bills, aides said. Both chambers are out of session after the middle of July for the national party conventions and the annual August recess.

The House, which is on break until July 5, must approve the legislation since it differs dramatically from the bill that chamber passed last July.

Other key aspects of the agreement:

-The standards would become mandatory after USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service finalizes a rule laying out the disclosure requirements, including the optional on-package text and symbol. AMS would have two years to write the rule.

-USDA would be required to survey the availability of scanning devices and the internet and provide additional disclosure options if officials determine that shoppers “would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital” methods.

-Food manufacturers defined as “very small” would be exempt from the disclosure requirement entirely. AMS would define the thresholds for small and very small businesses. The Food and Drug Administration sets those thresholds at $10 million and $1 million for nutrition labeling. Restaurants also would be exempt.

-Meat and dairy products wouldn't be considered GMOs just because the animals were fed GMO feed, and products such as pizza where meat is the lead ingredient also would be exempt even if there is a minor biotech ingredient such as high fructose corn syrup. Animals such as salmon that are genetically engineered would fall under the disclosure requirements.

-USDA would have no authority to require recalls of products that don't comply with the labeling requirements, and there would be no federal penalties for violations. States, however, could impose fines for violations of the standards under state consumer protection rules.

The bill also includes a provision sought by the organic industry that could help broaden support for the legislation: Products that are certified organic by USDA could be labeled as non-GMO.

The Organic Trade Association applauded the bill, saying it “would for the first time require mandatory GMO labeling nationwide.

“This legislation includes provisions that are excellent for organic farmers and food makers - and for the millions of consumers who choose organic every day - because they recognize, unequivocally, that USDA Certified Organic products qualify for non-GMO claims in the market place,” OTA said.

The relatively tight definition of “bioengineering” that is in the labeling bill would not affect other federal regulations for biotechnology.

Following stories about GMO? Sign up for an Agri-Pulse four-week free trial subscription to stay on top of this and other ag, rural policy and energy news.

The House voted 275-150 last July to approve its Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act (HR 1599), which, in addition to preempting state biotech labeling requirements, would set up a process for labeling foods as non-GMO, a provision left out of the Senate agreement. Some 45 Democrats voted for the bill, while 12 Republicans opposed it.

The Senate agreement also omits a provision of the House bill that would require FDA to define the use of the word “natural” on food labels but would leave it to the agency whether to allow genetically engineered ingredients.
Stabenow was long the key to the deal because of the 60-vote requirement for moving legislation in the Senate. She has long supported preempting state labeling laws but insisted that there be some kind of mandatory disclosure requirement. Roberts' negotiating leverage was limited because of the looming Vermont law and the decision by major food companies to begin complying with it. In the end, however, he cut a deal that largely met their priorities.
To read the bill, click here.

EPA Admin grilled on ‪#‎glyphosate‬ this week at House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing -Rep Lucas - June 22, 2016

Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2016 cycle


Grocery Manufacturer’s Assoc:

Victory!! Pesticide Contamination Prohibited from Organic Production

Yesterday, Judge Corley of the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California agreed, ruling that USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) violated the law when it issued what it called a “guidance” that weakened the long-standing prohibition on synthetic pesticides in organic compost, and striking it down.
The organic watchdog nonprofits lauded the victory:

“The court’s decision upholds the integrity of the organic standard and is an incredible victory for organic consumers, organic farmers and the environment. On the flipside, the decision is a resounding defeat of industrial food actors trying to sell out organic integrity to pad their own pocketbooks,” said senior CFS attorney George Kimbrell, counsel for the plaintiffs.

Federal Court Finds USDA Process for Allowing Pesticide-Contaminated Compost Improper and Stops Use - (Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2016)

In a ruling that organic advocates say is critical to the integrity of the USDA organic label, a U.S. District Court judge found Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated public process when it decreed that pesticide-contaminated compost is allowed in organic production. Three groups that bridge environmental, consumer, and farmer interests sued USDA for ruling that green waste compost, which comes from lawn clippings and plants, may contain levels of the insecticide bifenthrin and other pesticides that have not been approved for use in organic systems through proper public hearing and comment procedures. The case focused principally on whether USDA, in failing to conduct a formal public review, was operating “at its whim.” The court found that is exactly what USDA did and ordered the agency to stop allowing the use of contaminated compost by August 22, 2016.

Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton on Monsanto

What's the difference in Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton when it comes to Monsanto and your right to know what is in your food?

Glyphosate herbicide disrupts uterine development

What's With Wheat? Why have we become so wheat intolerant?

‘What’s With Wheat?’ documentary investigates the growing epidemic of wheat intolerance and why after eating wheat for thousands of years, it has been linked to so many health problems.

Register NOW to watch the FREE 7 day global online screening available between 24-30 June.

The 9th GMO FREE ZONE in the USA stands on hold, for now. The most recent news: we are moving forward today and filing an intent to appeal.

The judge has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit in which we have intervened. We are disappointed, but we know that change can take a long time, especially when in a difficult fight against the largest chemical company in the world!

We fight on behalf of Josephine County voters to maintain the ban on GMO crops and stand ready to continue the fight.

Community meetings held in early June let us know that the citizens of Josephine County stand with us and stand strong!

We are working with groups in Cave Junction, Williams and Grants Pass to continue to spread the word of what has happened and to plan our next moves.

A three-pronged approach is being set into motion this week that includes: an appeal to our case, a political strategy to obtain a legislative change for Josephine County, and a statewide coalition to protect all of Oregon from the threat of genetic contamination via pollen drift.

Also, the attorney for the plaintiffs filed a petition asking for attorney fees to the tune of nearly $30,000. Our legal team is set to file a reply to vigorously fight against it; case law is on our side with this. In fact, plaintiff’s attorney is unlikely to win if the judge follows the correct legal standard. We will post these documents soon on our website under 'Legal Filings.'

The bottom line is, a bully has sued the county and overturned the vote of the people; now this same bully is sending the bill to the people of Josephine County. This outrageous request will be decided in the coming weeks.

We’ll continue to post updates on as things develop. Thank you for continuing to support our efforts to protect the 9th GMO FREE ZONE in the US

Sincerely, Mary Middleton, Director, Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families

Seventy Percent of Brazilian Food Contaminated by Agrochemicals

WeedFree On Track Spray Train


“ We’re eating World War 2's leftovers! ”

Monsanto, America's Monster // Empire_File029

In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin issues a scathing expose on the corporate polluter, chronicling it's rise to power, the collusion of its crimes by the US government, and highlighting the serious danger it puts us in today.

Cotton crisis

Some facts are indisputable. Cotton production has not increased as promised since BT cotton was introduced. The decline is not fully reflected in the data released by the government because it has changed the measure used to determine the output, which is counted in the number of bales. Previously, each cotton bale weighed 176 kilogrammes. Since 2011 it has been reduced to 150kg. Using the old measure we know that cotton production had hit a record figure of 14.6 million bales in 2004. That figure has never been reached again and last year it was less than 9m bales (by the old measure).The per hectare yield as well as the area of cotton cultivation have been erratic. In FY2012, 2.8m hectares (about seven acres) were cultivated and the yield was 815kg per hectare. In FY2016, these figures were 2.91 hectares with a yield of 587kg per hectare respectively, which means the slight increase in acreage was offset by the lower yield.

Deformities, sickness & livestock deaths: the real cost of glyphosate & GM animal feed? - 2013

At first glance the frozen bundles could be mistaken for conventional joints of meat. But as Ib Pedersen, a Danish pig farmer, lifts them carefully out of the freezer it becomes apparent they are in fact whole piglets - some horribly deformed, with growths or other abnormalities, others stunted.

Canada to regulate CRISPR technology

Man-made pollutants found in Earth's deepest ocean trenches - Monsanto’s PCB’s

Cuba's organic honey exports create buzz as bees die off elsewhere
Arty turns 11 this summer.