In case you missed it:

How to honor the victims? Get the poisons out of the schools!

Hello all,
The USDA is accepting comments concerning the ultra-lame GMO labeling currently being considered at Regulations.gov. Why would anyone have a problem with honest labeling that allows consumers to make informed choices? Please take a moment to submit comments!

To simplify the talking points, here is a repost from Beyond Pesticides:

As a consumer, I have a right to know whether my food is produced using genetic engineering. As USDA finalizes labeling regulations, please ensure that labels are honest, transparent, and informative by adopting the following policies:

1. Reject package labeling with unreliable “QR codes” and other discriminatory communication methods; such options discriminate against more than 100 million Americans — especially many in rural communities, as well as low-income, people of color, and elderly populations that tend disproportionately to lack access to these technologies.
2. Require labeling to use only common, well-established labeling terms, such as GE or GMO. Do not allow these to be replaced with the term “bioengineered,” or the entirely unfamiliar acronym “be.”
3. Require neutral symbols: The disclosure law permits the use of symbols instead of text, but the proposed symbol — which conveys a blatant bias with its “smiley face” sun — should be prohibited, and only the acronym “GE” or “GMO” should be allowed as shorthand.
4. Require all foods produced with genetic engineering — including highly processed oils and sugars — to be labeled.
5. Include new and future methods of genetic engineering, such as gene editing (including CRISPR).
6. Require companies to use GMO content labels by January 1, 2020, and reject the proposed delay until 2022.
7. Ensure harmonization with the European Union by requiring disclosure if unintended GE contamination exceeds the current level of detection.

Thank you!

If you have been following the GMO labeling controversy, you will probably not be surprised that the proposed labels do not contain "GMO" or "genetically modified organism"; rather, the friendly sunshiny and smiley face green labels will have the letters "BE" for bioengineered. Additional insult comes with the proposal that QR codes would have the technical information, requiring a person to scan all their produce in order to ensure that they are not purchasing GMOs. The final punch is a giant loophole stating that processed foods containing GMO ingredients will not have to label their products.

When I first saw these prototype BE/GMO labels, I mistakenly thought that these were (real) bee friendly labels; they are definitely not! Don't be fooled by this USDA/Monsanto&DuPont attempt to keep consumers in the DARK: buy organic and buy local. Support your farmers and biodiversity, not frankenfood.

Want to learn more? Visit the Center for Food Safety.

It is definitely SPRING, which means I am outside playing in my garden (rather than sitting in front of my computer). There is a lot of action in the news regarding the use of GMOs and glyphosate/Round-up, calling Monsanto on their shenanigans, scuttling the DARK act, and a call to (get ready for this) ban the use of toxic fracking wastewater in organic food production... what, are you serious? ONLY on organic foods (wait-currently, someone is growing organic food with fracking wastewater? Holy S**T batman)

Links to peruse when you are ready to help fight the good fight:

CIVIL EATS Scientists speak out against glyphosate

Organic Bytes #505 Koch, Monsanto, DARK Act

Cornucopia Institute=Ban the use of Fracking Wastewater on organic food production

In case you missed this headline, here it is:
Seattle seeks millions from Monsanto to clean up PCBs from Duwamish
The Seattle Times reports: The city of Seattle is suing to make Monsanto pay for cleanup of toxic PCBs from the city’s drainage system and the Duwamish River.

Monsanto was the sole producer of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) for commercial use in the U.S. from 1935 to 1977, and continued to profit from their sale for years even as its officials knew the chemicals were polluting the environment, causing harm to people and wildlife, said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.

“When the profit motive overtakes concern for the environment, this is the kind of disaster that happens,” Holmes said Tuesday. “I’m proud to hold Monsanto accountable.”
Seattle is the sixth major city in the West to seek cleanup damages from the company, joining San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, San Diego and Spokane, which Holmes said gave him the idea to file the federal lawsuit.

Documents uncovered in the Spokane case revealed the company’s own medical department warned in 1955 that the chemicals were so toxic, by either ingestion or inhalation, that employees making PCBs could be harmed just from eating lunches contaminated from the chemical fumes or residue on workers’ hands.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are Monsanto Company, plus Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia Corp., which were spun off through a series of reorganizations of the company. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

Monsanto on Tuesday denied responsibility for the pollution. Read the full story here.

Feb. 2017 UPDATE from Seattle Times:
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by the city of Seattle against Monsanto to make the company pay for the cleanup of toxic PCBs from the city’s drainage system and the Duwamish River.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik, in denying Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the case, said the city’s claim “plausibly alleges that Monsanto knew that its chemical products were toxic, yet chose not to modify its toxic chemical products, or to warn of their toxicity, in order to maximize its profits.”

The lawsuit now proceeds to discovery. A tentative trial date is set in April 2018.

Hmmmm. Monsanto denied responsibility? Again?

Organic Consumers Association reports:
The Gates Foundation is taking their newest show on the road with a $5.6 million propaganda campaign and a goal to "depolarize the charged debate" about GMOs. You do not have to scratch very deep into the Gates/Cornell so-called 'Alliance for Science' to see that this is an aggressive propaganda tool for corporate biotech and agribusiness (Shame-on-you Cornell).

By the way, did you know that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto Stock?

GMOs to end world hunger? I think not...
Proponents of GM crops tell us that we need genetic modification to feed a growing population and reduce world hunger. However there is not a single study that proves GMOs have helped “feed the world.” Here are 5 facts, gathered by Canadian crusader Rachel Parent, that prove this statement is purely a marketing claim used by agrochemical companies to sell more patented seeds and chemicals.

Monsanto, Bill Gates, Cargill...go ahead, connect the dots for yourself. And don't forget: buy organic.

The Horrifying News: (from Organic Consumers Association):

Frankenfish Fraud Fest
On November 2, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first genetically modified food animal—an Atlantic salmon that grows twice as fast as natural salmon, thanks to the insertion of genes from Chinook salmon and eelpout (an eel-like fish).

This approval is so wrong, on so many levels, that it’s hard to know where to start.
For one, the FDA regulates GMO salmon as a drug, not a food—"because the recombinant DNA (rDNA) construct introduced into the animal meets the definition of a drug."

If that’s the case, you would think this new “drug” should be labeled. But it won’t be, because out of the other side of the FDA’s mouth, the agency has declared GMO salmon to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon. (REALLY?)

As this article on Mercola.com says:
In the eyes of the FDA, it's a perfectly normal fish, but it's also a drug, but since it's a fish that is comparable to other fish, it doesn't need to be labeled, even though all drugs typically need to be labeled...

But of course the new frankenfish is not nutritionally equivalent to farmed salmon. Worse yet, the FDA approved GMO salmon on the basis of flawed studies, none of which included long-term safety testing to prove genetically engineered salmon is safe for human consumption.

********************************
The "at least not everyone has a death wish" News:
Many are fighting the good fight on this issue, and most major food retailers, including Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Whole Foods, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, and Giant Eagle have announced they will not stock GE salmon. (Interestingly, AquaBounty, who is owned by the synthetic biology firm Intrexon, recently purchased the patent for Okanagan's GM non-browning apple too.) Hmm.

Want to find out more?
Center for Food Safety GE fish
Beyond Pesticides Genetically Engineered Salmon without Labeling Approved by FDA