~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Tell Walmart: Say no to GMO

12/01/2013 Nativegrl77 4 Comments

Who wants genetically engineered (GE) sweet corn in our grocery stores?Surely Walmart doesn’t want it…right? Our friends at Food & Water Watch have waged a campaign to stop genetically engineered sweet corn from making it to the stores and your dinner table with tremendous success from a number of food suppliers, but Walmart has yet to reply.

Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and General Mills have all pledged to not use it, why hasn’t Walmart done the same?
Take action with our friends at Food & Water Watch and tell Walmart to reject GE sweet corn!
Thanks, your friends at Greenpeace _____________________________

Ask Walmart to Reject Genetically Engineered Sweet Corn
Sign the Petition to Tell Walmart You Won’t Buy GE Sweet Corn

                 Dear friend,
Genetically engineered Monsanto sweet corn is approved and could be on your plate this year. Monsanto’s sweet corn could be planted this spring, but Walmart can refuse to accept it, protecting consumers from this untested and unlabeled product. Can you sign our petition asking Walmart to reject genetically engineered sweet corn?              Why should you ask Walmart to reject Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered (GE) Sweet Corn?
1) Whether you shop at Walmart or not, they are the largest U.S. food retailer, and if they won’t sell genetically engineered sweet corn, it’s likely that farmers won’t plant it.
2) Genetically engineered sweet corn will not be labeled, so you won’t know what you’re buying.
3) Monsanto’s GE sweet corn hasn’t been tested for human safety, and it contains three different genetically engineered traits that haven’t been used in food eaten directly by people.
Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and General Mills have already agreed not to use GE sweet corn in any of their products, but we need other stores to follow their lead to end the market for this untested sweet corn.
As you already know, genetically engineered foods are not required to be   labeled, so we have no way of knowing if a food contains GE ingredients. We believe labeling should be required so that people can choose whether or not they want to eat GE   foods. Unfortunately GE sweet corn, will not be labeled, and doesn’t   look any different from regular sweet corn.
Help make sure GE Sweet Corn is not sold by signing our petition to Walmart. We’ll be delivering this petition to Walmart next month in an attempt to stop GE Sweet Corn from reaching your plate.

Sign the petition to Walmart today: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9341

Thanks for taking action,

Wenonah Hauter

Executive Director

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

GMO labeling lies

12/01/2013 Nativegrl77

AlterNet – I522 and Washington State

Zack Kaldveer, AlterNet

Here are the lies. And the facts. Please read, print, email, roll up and stuff into a bottle you launch into the sea . . . whatever it takes to spread the word that while $46 million may buy a lot of lies, it doesn’t change the facts.

1. Lie: Labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs) will cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.

Truth: Empirical studies have concluded labeling would lead to no increases in prices. Since the European Union labeled GMOs in the 1990’s, there has been ” no resulting increase in grocery costs.”

Trader Joe’s, Clif Bar & Co. and Washington’s own PCC Natural Markets all label their non-GMO product lines at no additional cost to consumers.

2. Lie: I-522 is full of arbitrary special interest exemptions that will just confuse consumers.

Truth: I-522 requires labeling for the GE foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. I-522’s exemptions are easy to explain and guided by common sense and the law:

Restaurants – Restaurants and bake sales are not required to list the ingredients in their products. Requiring labeling for GMOs would have required tracking all the ingredients in restaurant meals, and since no other laws require that, it didn’t make sense for this one to.
Meat, cheese, dairy and eggs from animals – These will be labeled if they come from genetically engineered animals. However, they are exempt if the animals ate genetically engineered feed but are not themselves genetically engineered. This exemption is common all around the world. It didn’t make sense for Washington’s law to be stricter than international standards.
Alcohol – Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, alcohol couldn’t be included.

3. Lie: Consumers don’t need labels to avoid GMOs. All they need to do is buy certified organic products.

Truth: Food companies routinely and intentionally mislead consumers by labeling products “natural” in order to attract health-conscious consumers. Because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of the word “natural” on products containing GMOs, most consumers are fooled by this label. According to a recent poll by the Hartman group, 61 percent of respondents erroneously believed that the use of the word “natural” implies or suggests the absence of GMOs, versus 63 percent who correctly believed that the label “organic” means that a product is GMO-free. Food companies should be required, as they are in some 60 other countries, to clearly state that a product contains GMOs. If companies truly believe their GMO ingredients are perfectly safe, why spend millions to keep from having to label them?

4. Lie: Washington will be the only state in the nation to label GMOs, unfairly hurting farmers and the state’s multi-billion agricultural industry.

Truth: Washington won’t be the only state labeling GE foods. Connecticut, Maine and Alaska have passed labeling laws and dozens of other states are considering identical proposals. Besides, 64 countries already require labeling, so many farmers are already used to labeling for exports. In fact, many Washington farmers support labeling because they believe that growing GMO crops destroys healthy soil, and because they sell crops to overseas markets that either require labels on GMO crops, or have banned them completely. These countries are increasingly concerned about U.S. non-GMO crops, such as wheat, that could potentially be contaminated by cross-pollination with GMO crops.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Update: Stop GMO salmon

12/01/2013 Nativegrl77 1 Comment

The FDA must require labeling of genetically modified salmon.

Submit your comment asking the FDA to require clear labels on GMO salmon, or better yet, ban GMO fish altogether.

Earlier this year we let you know about the Food and Drug Administration’s impending approval of a genetically modified (GMO) strain of salmon. Over 54,000 CREDO Action members responded by telling the FDA not to approve the fish.

There are some signs that our pressure is working. At the public hearing in September several members of the advisory committee criticized the poor science submitted by AquaBounty, the company engineering the fish, and called for more rigorous scientific review before moving forward with the approval process.¹

While the committee has not yet issued a recommendation on whether to approve the salmon, the FDA has opened a public comment period on labeling requirements should the organism be brought to market. We still firmly believe that AquaBounty’s application should be rejected, but we need to fight this battle on all fronts.

We have until November 22 to let the FDA know that it should not approve GMO salmon, but if it does, to enact strict labeling requirements — so consumers can at the very least make educated decisions about what they eat.

People who know anything about this salmon have good reason to be afraid. The fish is modified with genes from another species — the eelpout — so that it can grow twice as fast as normal.²

Because the FDA is reviewing the salmon application under its rules for animal drugs, there is little focus on the potential dangers of human consumption. Additionally, the FDA has not conducted any of its own research and is instead relying on information provided by AquaBounty, a company that has a financial incentive to downplay potential dangers.

There are also serious concerns about the environmental impact of the fish. Studies show that if just a few GMO salmon escaped into the wild, they could eradicate the wild Atlantic salmon population in less than 40 fish generations.³

Clearly, the FDA shouldn’t allow the fish to be produced in the first place. But if it does, the FDA should require that it be clearly labeled so we can decide on our own to keep it off our dinner plates.

The November 22 deadline is approaching. Submit your public comment today telling the FDA to enact clear labeling requirements for GMO salmon, or better yet, keep it off the market altogether.

Adam Klaus, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets