It should be no surprise that GMOs are a controversial topic, and that their usage is a heated, ongoing debate in our society. Due to recent advancements in human communication, public discourse about current food production methods has become increasingly informed and vocal, leading to some very serious concerns being brought to the fore.
These valid and understandable worries have shaken the very foundation of the food industry, but corporations are still intent on using their seemingly endless supply of money to remain in control.
The only question is, will it work?
What Are Front Groups?
In response to heightened criticism, the food industry has stepped up its public relation efforts to reassure everyone that our current food system is safe and healthy. One tactic to sway public discourse is to pay third party agencies to produce biased media promoting their agenda. These agencies can confront certain topics head on, on behalf of large industry titans. Continue reading
“Non-GMO is More Profitable.”
This is the rising sentiment among farmers of the US as a confluence of factors urges them to become pro-organic. From falling GMO grain prices to a rising tide of public distrust of genetically modified ingredients, failing GMO traits, higher GMO seed prices, and the premium prices that people willingly pay for quality food over toxic junk, the conventional farmer is changing his tune when it comes to Big Ag practices.
Even if profit is the cornerstone on which this change is based, it is still telling. After all, experts project over $35 billion in sales for organic, non-GMO foods in 2015, and as GMO corn, soy and other GM grain prices rise, along with the costs to grow them (associated with more pesticide and herbicide use to control super weeds, for example) farmers are looking past the GMO propaganda which promised higher yields and more cash for farmers who grew their poison crops.
This phenomenon is explained clearly in “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” (full text available for download here) published in The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.
Gilbert Hostetler, president of Illinois-based Prairie Hybrids commented: Continue reading
Dr. Matthew Buckley, PSc.D. entered the health care field largely to understand and resolve his personal struggles with chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia which began late in his teens. His ongoing study of functional medicine, nutrition, nutrigenomics, applied kinesiology, and energetic medicine has provided him with keen insight and understanding into the holistic dynamics of the body and how we lose and maintain our health.
He has maintained a busy practice in Austin, Texas for the past 13 years and works with people of all ages interested in maximizing their health, and overcoming the modern scourge of all forms of chronic illness. Continue reading
Perhaps you remember a time not too far in our collective grocery-shopping past when regular grocery stores chains and places like Walmart had no idea what organic food was. Organic milk? Bread? Produce? They didn’t carry it. You had to find an obscure health food store or a farmer’s market if you didn’t live near a Whole Foods to find non-GMO, healthful food that wasn’t full of pesticides. But thankfully, consumers are demanding different products now. Demand for organic food has busted through its glass ceiling.
You can attribute this change in market demand to education. You can attribute it to the mass awakening happening around the planet. But either way, you can’t argue with the numbers. Eating organic is no longer ‘fringe’ or something done solely by health-nuts and athletes, hippies, and paranoids. In fact, consumer demand for organic food is seeing double digit growth year over year, and it doesn’t show signs of stopping.
Over 20,000 stores now offer organic food products. A report has shown that in 2012, more than $28.4 million was spent on healthful organic food, and that number has grown since the report published such findings. According to Nutrition Business Journal, organic food sales will reach a startling $35 billion this year. For those of us who don’t take our health for granted, this is just the beginning of a food revolution. Continue reading
When you think of GMO labeling initiatives, you probably don’t immediately think about the tucked away Midwestern state of Minnesota. But in a move that could very well beat out states like California and New York in finally achieving a full-fledged GMO labeling law system, Minnesota legislatures have introduced brand new highly-backed GMO labeling legislation that is shaping up to be quite promising.
Never before would you think that the battleground for GMO awareness and legislative overhaul would in fact take place at a St. Paul, Minneapolis court house, but that is exactly the current epicenter for the future decision that could impact states as far away as Florida and Texas.
Even with the introduction of SB 335 back in April of 2014, which would require the disclosure (through labeling) of genetically modified ingredients before or on January of 2017, it has sent GMO-based food manufacturers and biotech corporations into a frenzy. One that is full of the same old arguments we have heard (and proven to be lies) in the past, such as their ridiculous claims that: Continue reading
Will the US soon rule the same?
Costa Rican marketplace
Here’s some powerful news you may have missed buried amid the footnotes of major news websites: Costa Rica’s Supreme Court has formally declared the nation’s GMO approval process to be highly ‘unconstitutional.’
In what amounts to great news in the fight to regain the global food supply, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica struck a blow against Monsanto and other major biotech firms in their recent ruling regarding the secrecy of the approval process itself.
According to Chief Justice Gilbert Armijo Sancho, who actually authored the final verdict for the court, the nation’s current approval process for the planting of GMOs is veiled in ‘secrecy’ and directly goes against the constitutional right to freedom of information. Continue reading
“GMO practices, which tend to tout the promise of food security by saturating crops with toxins, have also been shown to produce no yield increases. Instead, they’re nothing more than a serious hazard to the environment and all who depend on it to live healthy lives.” – J Lilley
Los Angeles, where there are no known GMOs, may want to brace themselves for a change… and it isn’t for the better.
Just when a GMO ban for the city appeared to be favored by officials, a good ol’ one-two switch took place when they suddenly expressed opposition. In fact, their abrupt change of heart came a mere three days before LA lawmakers were slated to vote on a proposal to ban genetically modified crops in the city, a decision which — coincidentally — also occurred when top City Hall lobbyists were hired to prevent it from going into effect.
Late in 2014, 15 LA council members were on board with the ban (there was only one opposing vote), soaring through the necessary steps that put it that much closer to gaining its final determining vote. That all came to a halt when the lobbyists were hired; when voting time came once again, suddenly three of the five council committee members expressed dissatisfaction, taking a strong stance against the GMO ban. They are adamant that lobbying had nothing to do with their flip-flop decision, saying that, instead, it was a closer examination of more information and identification of possible problems with the ban that led to their opposition.(1)
Lobbyists say GMO ban founded on “wrong science”
Councilman Gil Cedillo cited issues with the ban such as cost and enforcement, to which another councilman, Tom LaBonge responded in bobble-head-nodding agreement. Furthermore, there’s the action of George Kieffer, an established LA attorney associated with the Biotechnology Industry Organization who is also a City Hall lobbyist. He’s said to have delivered information to council offices in an attempt to prove that the suggested GMO ban was founded on the “wrong science.” Kieffer was supported by other lobbyists, John Ek and Howard Sunkin. Councilman Cedillo maintains that neither he nor his staff engaged in conversation with these individuals, expressing that their shift in thoughts had nothing to do with their influence.(1) Continue reading
Last year, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture officials sent ‘a friendly letter’ to a seed bank/seed exchange group in Mechanicsburg, telling them they need to test every variety of seed with extremely impractical and pointless tests to ensure that they are up to standards with regulations.
‘Agri-Terrorism’ was cited by officials as a reason why such regulations should be enforced on something as natural as the right to exchange and possess seeds.
There are laws in every state regulating the possession and exchange of seeds. The actual enforcement of these laws is spotty, because a lot of law is actually too complex most often to even decode, and just about any crazy thing that was once written in law can be enforced if law enforcement wants to. Also, who wants to enforce laws regulating and stifling such a productive, natural right?
“There’s almost no danger,” said John Torgrimson, the executive director of the Seed Savers Exchange. “This is not a risk to agriculture in any state. This is not a risk to our food supply.”
Pennsylvania is not alone in this fight. Regulators in Nebraska are also looking at local seed banks. Continue reading