Food for Thought

Californians to Vote on Prop 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:03:00 +0000

This November, voters in California will vote on Proposition 2, a ballot measure that would greatly reduce the suffering of animals raised for food. As factory farms look to generate more and more profit, the animals they house are granted less and less space to live in. Factory farms can cram pigs, cows and calves, and chickens into cages and crates so small that the animals can not even turn around, spread their wings or limbs, or exhibit any of their natural behaviors. These animals can be confined in such cramped quarters for their entire lives. If you saw a neighbor's dog housed in the way our farm animals are, you would likely call the police or the SPCA, so why we do allow such inhumane treatment of animals we raise for food?

Free Range Studios created this short video to support Prop 2, and you can even see Hillary Duff say four words I never expected to hear pass her lips--"Center for Food Safety"--in another supporting video.

What is a Factory Farm? The government calls these facilities Concentrated (or Confined) Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a CAFO as “new and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified” in categories that they list out. In addition, “there’s no grass or other vegetation in the confinement area during the normal growing season.”

According to the EPA, a large CAFO includes 1000 cattle (other than dairy, which is 700), 2500 hogs over 55 pounds, or 125,000 chickens (as long as a liquid manure system isn’t used). A liquid manure system is when the animal’s urine and feces are mixed with water and held either under the facility or outside in huge open air lagoons - these manure systems create a lot of pollution (which many times taxpayers end up paying for). The chickens they refer to are chickens other than laying hens – laying hens must number between 30,000 - 82,000, depending on how the manure is handled.

A medium factory farm (CAFO) has between 300-999 cattle other than dairy (200-699 if dairy), 750-2,499 hogs if 55 pounds or more, and 37,500 to 124,999 chickens (other than hens that lay eggs) if the facility doesn’t use a liquid manure handling system.

Factory farms cut corners and drive family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health. Factory farms have put our health at risk by keeping animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. Cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of animal diseases that threaten human health. Low doses of antibiotics are administered regularly to animals in a preemptive move to ward off the diseases bred by unnatural, unsanitary conditions. In fact, an estimated 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are regularly added to the feed of livestock and poultry that are not sick—a practice with serious consequences for our health; Bacteria that are constantly exposed to antibiotics develop antibiotic resistance. This means that when humans get sick from resistant bacteria, the antibiotics prescribed by doctors don’t work. In addition to preventive medicines, animals are fed hormones and antibiotics to promote faster growth.

Factory farming also hurts our environment and rural communities. The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground untreated — contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air.

Prop 2 is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Food Safety, and the California Veterinary Medical Association. For more information on Prop 2, visit the Yes on Prop 2! website.

Banksy hits New York with Pet Store and Charcoal Grill

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:04:00 +0000

As if anyone needed any more convincing of the strange genius that is Banksy, the Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill may well do it. In his first attempt at using animatronics, Banksy brings to the West Village a visual smack in the face about factory farming, where our food comes from, and how we treat the animals that provide it.

From fish sticks swimming happily in a fishbowl, to hot dogs in terrariums, to baby chicken nuggets eating barbeque sauce, Banksy's "shop" is unnerving to say the least. Banksy was quoted by the Wooster Collective on the exhibit:

"I wanted to make art that questioned our relationship with animals and the ethics and sustainability of factory farming, but it ended up as chicken nuggets singing."

For you New Yorkers, or those of you excited enough to go, Banksy's Pet Shop will be open 10am to Midnight daily through Halloween. The shop is located at 89 West 7th Avenue.

Photos and Video from the Wooster Collective

MONSANTO SEEKS TO DIVEST OWNERSHIP OF CONTROVERSIAL GROWTH HORMONE USED IN MILK PRODUCTION

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:10:00 +0000

rBST Marketed as Posilac Was Considered Flagship Product of Agricultural Biotechnology

Center for Food Safety and Other Consumer and Farm Groups Declare a Victory for Consumers in “Milk Wars” Over the Use of the Artificial Growth Hormone

Washington, DC, August 6, 2008 – Today, the Center for Food Safety and other consumers and farm groups declared a victory for consumers in the ongoing ‘milk wars’ when the the Monsanto Company announced this morning that it was “pursuing a divestiture of its dairy product, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), in the upcoming months.” This decision by the biotech giant to drop its line of artificial bovine growth hormones, Monsanto’s first biotech product, comes after a nearly five-year decline in use of rBST, which was marketed under the name “Posilac”.

“What’s happened today could be a great victory for the American consumer,” says Andrew Kimbrell, founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “Monsanto has recognized that consumers have made a choice to avoid milk made with genetically engineered growth hormones, and that the dairies and markets that serve their needs are not buying milk made with their product. They have clearly judged the time right to get out of the failing artificial growth hormone business.”

In 1994, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone, the FDA also said that the following label statement, in proper context, is acceptable: “from cows not treated with rBST.” Last year, Monsanto asked FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to declare these labels to be misleading. In August 2007, the FTC wrote to Monsanto, “The FTC staff agrees with FDA that food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST.”

Subsequent attempts by Monsanto to ban such labeling at the state level have met with strong resistance from local consumers, advocacy groups, farmers and dairies. Earlier this summer, an overwhelming public backlash forced Pennsylvania Governor Rendell to rescind an order from his Dept. of Agriculture to remove labels from milk identifying it as produced without use of rBGH. A similar rule put forward in Ohio is now under legal challenge by groups representing farmers, dairies and consumers (the Center for Food Safety is a co-plaintiff).

“When Monsanto failed to get the federal government to remove “rBST-Free” labels, they went after states like Pennsylvania and Ohio to ban labels, but they’ve been fought every step of the way,” said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. “They have clearly seen and understood that public demand is in favor of transparency and truth when it comes to what’s on our plates.”

Scientists and physicians have long raised questions about the long-term safety of consuming milk from cows treated with rBGH, concerns stemming from the milk’s increased levels of insulin-like growth factor, another powerful hormone. Regulators in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and all 27 nations of the European Union have banned rbGH due to adverse effects on animal health. Cows injected with the hormone show increased risks for infertility and lameness as well as for udder infections, which are treated with antibiotics. Antibiotic use on animals is a major cause of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a major public health threat.

Numerous polls show that there is widespread consumer demand for milk produced by cows not treated with artificial hormones and the market is responding to that demand. A June 2007 Consumer Reports National Research Center poll of over 1,000 people nationwide found that 76 percent of consumers were concerned with dairy cows given synthetic growth hormones and 88 percent agreed that milk from cows raised without synthetic bovine growth hormone should be allowed to be labeled as such.

Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone business has been in decline since 2002, according to a recent USDA report. The number of dairy cows injected with rBGH dropped from 22.3 percent of all U.S. cows in 2002 to 17.2 percent in 2007, a nearly 23 percent drop. This trend in response to market demand continues: in 2008, many more dairies have announced that are going rBST-free.

Take a Bite Out of Global Warming!

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:35:00 +0000

The Center for Food Safety and the CornerStone Campaign recently launched the Cool Foods Campaign – a new campaign designed to help people reduce their personal contributions to global warming by changing the way they eat.

One way to reduce global warming is to begin with the food we eat. The Cool Foods Campaign educates the public about how their food choices can affect global warming and equips them with the resources they need to reduce their impact. The aim of the Campaign is to inspire a groundswell of informed people committed to making sustainable food choices to reduce their “FoodPrint” (defined as the measure of the impact of the food you consume on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the growing, preparation, and transportation of that food).

Is Industrial Agriculture Cooking the Planet?
Did you know that our food system is a major contributor to global warming? The U.S. food system uses between 17-19% of the total energy supply in the country, contributing a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere every day.

On large-scale, modernized industrial farms, greenhouse gases are created numerous ways. Pesticide and fertilizer applications, irrigation, lighting, transportation, and other machinery are powered by greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels. The production of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides alone require the equivalent use of over 123 million barrels of oil, making them one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture.

The overuse of agricultural chemicals pollutes watersheds and kills plants that could otherwise capture greenhouse gases and actually reduce global warming. As the plants decompose they emit methane, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Methane is also emitted by the 95 million cows raised each year in the United States. The waste from these animals, and 60 million hogs raised every year, are collected and stored in stagnant manure pits which release not only a pungent smell, but more methane.

Once our food is grown it is transported throughout the country to grocery stores and markets. The average American meal has traveled about 1,500 miles before it arrives on your plate. All told, the U.S food system uses the equivalent of over 450 billion gallons of oil every year.

What You Can Do: Reducing Your Carbon FoodPrint
You can have a major influence on global warming by making better food choices, and reducing your FoodPrint. The “Coolest” foods have the lowest FoodPrint and are made without producing excess greenhouse gases. When foods that produce higher FoodPrints – those considered “Hot” – are avoided, we reduce our individual contributions to global warming. An easy way to tell if your food is “Cool” or “Hot” is to ask yourself these 5 basic questions before you buy.

(1) Is this food organic? Organic foods are produced without the use of energy-intensive synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, growth hormones, antibiotics, and they are not genetically engineered or irradiated. To Be Cooler: Buy organic and look for the USDA organic label to ensure that the food you eat is “certified organic.”

(2) Is this product made from an animal? Conventional meats – eg. beef, poultry, pork, dairy, and farmed seafood – are the #1 cause of global warming in our food system. Animals in industrial systems are fed foods they cannot biologically process and are confined to unhealthy and overcrowded cages – conditions that contribute to malnutrition and disease. In an attempt to keep animals healthy they are sprayed with over 2 million pounds of insecticides every year. They also ingest an astounding 84% of all the antimicrobials, including antibiotics, used annually in the U.S. To Be Cooler: Limit your consumption of conventional meat, dairy, and farmed seafood. Buy organic meat and dairy whenever possible, since these foods are produced without energy-intensive, synthetic pesticides and herbicides, and look for wild (not farmed), local seafood.

(3) Has this food been processed? Compared to whole foods such as fruits and vegetables, processed foods require the use of energy-intensive processes such as freezing, canning, drying, and packaging. To Be Cooler: Do your best to avoid processed foods all together, but “certified organic” processed foods are a good alternative.

(4) How far did this food travel to reach my plate? Transporting food throughout the world emits 30,800 tons of greenhouse gas every year. The average conventional food product travels about 1,500 miles to get to your grocery store. To Be Cooler: Choose locally produced foods or foods grown as close to your home as possible. Look for country of origin labels on whole foods and avoid products from far away.

(5) Is this food excessively packaged? Packaging materials, like plastic, are oil-based products that require energy to be created and are responsible for emitting 24,200 tons of greenhouse gas every year. To Be Cooler: Buy whole foods. Purchase loose fruits and vegetables (rather than bagged or shrink-wrapped), buy bulk beans, pasta, cereals, seeds, nuts, and grains, and carry your own reusable grocery bags.

Food Choice and Beyond
Want to reduce global warming? Join our “Cool Foods” Campaign and help take a bite out of global warming by changing the way you eat!

Top 10 Things You Can Do to Take a Bite Out of Global Warming

Choose organic foods.
Reduce meat and dairy consumption.
Choose foods with as few ingredients as possible.
Look for locally-produced foods.
Choose foods with as little packaging as possible.
Choose grass-fed beef instead of grain-fed beef.
Cook your own food instead of eating out.
Choose whole foods instead of processed foods.
Look for wild-caught local seafood instead of farm-raised seafood.
Use re-usable bags at the market.
Try to buy your food from farmer’s markets instead of grocery stores.

To keep up-to-date on the Cool Foods Campaign, and for more information about what you can do to lower your FoodPrint, visit our website at www.coolfoodcampaign.org.

NewsBites

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:29:00 +0000

D.C. Circuit Court says "No" to Scotts and Monsanto on Biotech GrassesRuling is Latest in a String of Victories in Which the Center for Food Safety Successfully Challenged Inadequate Oversight of Biotech Crops

A Federal Court of Appeals has tossed out the appeal of Scotts Grass Company, ending a long-running dispute over the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of the open-air field testing of genetically engineered "Round-up Ready" (GE) grasses without assessing any potential environmental impacts. The GE grasses are owned by Scotts Grass Company using patents owned by Monsanto.

In 2007 a federal district court ruled that the USDA's approvals of the tests were illegal because they did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). USDA declined to appeal the decision and instead instituted new NEPA policies for any future field tests. The court also ruled that USDA had to re-assess whether the GE grasses were "noxious weeds" under the Plant Protection Act. Scotts intervened in the case before the lower court's ruling. Scotts then appealed the decision, challenging the plaintiffs' ability to bring the case and the lower court's decision. In March the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the case.

Beyond the significant potential environmental risks of genetically engineered crops, the case is also a strong legal precedent limiting corporate intervenor-defendants' ability to continue legal challenges to government action without the government's involvement.

FDA’s Internal Report Reveals that Consumers Don’t Want Food from ClonesZero Percent of Parents Surveyed Would Feed Food from Clones to their Children

Made Available under a Freedom of Information Act Request and jointly released by the Center for Food Safety, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, Consumers Union, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch and the Humane Society of the United States, a report commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shows that the public does not want food from cloned animals, nor would they feed milk or meat from cloned animals to their children. The report, “Focus Groups on the Public’s Perception on the Health Risk Associated with Products from Animal Clones,” was written by the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.

The FDA focus group survey, conducted in 2005, states that “more than half of the participants across the board said that they would not want to eat food derived from clones.” Significantly, the FDA survey found that all those “participants who have children said that they would not give such food to their children.” The opinion survey also found many participants had serious health and ethical concerns about both clones and their offspring.

Despite the results of this focus group report and other reputable surveys showing high consumer concerns and an unwillingness to buy food from cloned animals regardless of FDA approval, in January the FDA issued its risk assessment approving food from cloned animals and their offspring for human consumption without requiring labeling.

California Supreme Court Victory in Farm Raised Salmon CasesCenter for Food Safety, which Filed a Friend of the Court Brief in the Case, Applauds the Decision as Vindicating the Consumers' Right to Know

The Supreme Court of the State of California in February issued a decision in the Farm Raised Salmon Cases, overturning a California Court of Appeal ruling. California citizens sued various grocery stores alleging the stores violated California's Sherman Law labeling requirements by selling artificially colored farmed salmon without labeling it as "color added" as required by law.
The suit focused on two chemical dyes applied to farmed salmon sold in supermarkets (without the pink dyes, the farmed fish would have appeared grey in color). The artificial dyes, canthaxanthin and astaxanthin, pose significant health risks. These dyes have been linked to several human health problems, including impaired vision and retinal damage, cancer, and hyperactivity in young children.

The suits - filed against several California grocery chains – were initially dismissed by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that federal labeling law preempts citizen enforcement of equivalent California state laws aimed at protecting human health and safety. The California Supreme Court's ruling concluded that the lower courts erred in taking away the citizens' right to enforce California's crucial food safety law.

New Study Concludes GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use, Fail to Alleviate Poverty and Have Not Reduced World Hunger

Genetically modified (GM) crops have led to a large increase in pesticide use and have failed to increase yield or tackle world hunger and poverty, revealed a new report by Friends of the Earth and Center for Food Safety. The report coincided with the annual release of biotech industry figures on GM crop cultivation around the world.

"The biotech industry tells Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But the majority of GM crops are used to feed animals in rich countries, to produce damaging agrofuels, and don't even yield more than conventional crops," said Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International's GMO coordinator in Nigeria.

"For years, the biotech industry has been trumpeting the benefits of GM crops, but this report shows the true emerging picture," added Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "These crops really promote greater use of pesticides, and cause direct harm to the environment and small farmers. More and more, foundations and international aid and development organizations are recognizing the dead end that GM crops represent."
The report, "Who Benefits from GM Crops?: The Rise in Pesticide Use," found thatGM crops do not tackle hunger or poverty; GM crops increase pesticide use and foster spread of resistant "superweeds;" Overall, GM crops do not yield more and often yield less than other crops; and that GM crops benefit the biotech industry and some large growers, not small farmers. Download the report at www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

Milk Wars: rBGH-Free Labeling Under Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:27:00 +0000

Several large dairy producers and food companies have made news recently by getting rid of recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, from their milk supply. Even retail giant Wal-Mart has announced that all of their Great Value brand milk will now come solely from cows not treated with rBGH. While this is great news for consumers, since this genetically engineered growth hormone is known to cause harm to cows and may pose health risks to humans, Monsanto (the company that makes rBGH under the brand name Posilac) has not taken the news as well.

FDA approved the use of voluntary labels more than 12 years ago at the request of dairy companies seeking to respond to customer concerns over the use of the genetically engineered hormone. Last year Monsanto pressured the FDA to restrict the use of labels identifying "rBGH-free" or "rBST-free" dairy products, but FDA rightly refused to do so. In late August 2007, the FTC wrote to Monsanto, "The FTC staff agrees with FDA that food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST." Since Monsanto could not convince the Feds to ban these labels, they have taken their fight to the state level.

Under the guise of protecting consumers from misleading information, states all over the country are considering restricting or banning dairy producers from labeling milk as produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone, which would eliminate consumers’ right to know what’s in their dairy products. Many consumers object to this hormone, known as rBGH or rBST, and these proposed regulations actually take away farmers' right to free speech and censors the truthful information consumers want and need. Such rules have thankfully been dismissed in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and New Jersey due to overwhelming consumer opposition, but Ohio recently passed such an unfortunate rule.

The long-term health impacts of rBST are not yet understood, and families with young children understandably want to avoid synthetic hormone use. In fact, an April 2007 Lake Research Partners' national survey conducted for Food and Water Watch shows that eight in ten adults (80%) feel dairy products originating from cows that have not been treated with rBGH should be allowed to be labeled as such.

As Laura Fortmeyer, a Kansas farmer and boardmember of the Kansas Rural Center put it: "As a Kansas farmer, I should be able to produce and promote products that respond to desires in the marketplace. As a Kansas consumer, I want a lot more information about the food I buy-where it comes from and how it's raised-not less. If milk producers and processors are willing to make the effort to provide the rBGH-free milk that I am looking for, they deserve my business.”
Without labeling to provide that information, Laura and all the rest of us will be left shopping in the dark.

Enjoy those sweets while you can!

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:11:00 +0000

This Valentine’s Day, as you open up that heart-shaped box of candy and taste those chocolate covered crèmes, nougats and truffles, enjoy them. And unless you’re one of the few who doesn’t eat chocolate, there’s no denying that sugar is the taste of Valentine’s Day.

Sadly, biotech companies want to take the sweets we know and love away from us.

Sugar in our Valentine’s candy (and our cereal, granola bars, crackers, bread – anything that contains sugar) comes from several sources, including sugar beets. In fact, about half of the sugar used in the U.S. is beet sugar (the other half is cane sugar). In the next few weeks, sugar beet seed farmers throughout the U.S. will be considering what type of sugar beets to plant, and food companies will have to decide what types of sugar they will accept.

A new option available this year is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered to survive direct application of the weed killer, Roundup. Unlike traditional breeding, genetic engineering creates new life forms that would never occur in nature, creating new and unpredictable health and environmental risks. To create GE crops, genes from bacteria, viruses, plants, animals, and even humans, have already been inserted into our common food crops, like corn, soy, and canola. Now the biotech industry has taken aim at our sugar.

At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5000%. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, sugar is extracted from the beet’s root. The inevitable result is more glyphosate pesticide in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their sweet treats without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.

In 2001, Hershey’s, M&M Mars, and American Crystal Sugar told consumers they would not use genetically engineered sugar. But now that sugar beets are close to being planted commercially, they have made no such assurances.

Tell Hershey’s, Mars, and American Crystal to show us the love, and keep our sweets GE-Free!

Victory on rBGH Labeling in Pennsylvania!

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:08:00 +0000

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) has backed down from a controversial ban on the use of labels on milk products. The agency had issued new rules in October, set to go into effect February 1st that would have barred dairy companies or milk producers from labeling their products as from cows not treated with rBGH. PDA argued that a misleading impression might be conveyed by identifying milk as coming from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. Pennsylvania would have been the first state to implement such a labeling ban.

The ban was rescinded yesterday after a review by Pennsylvania Governor Rendell due to consumer outcry.

Though labels are once again permitted to mention that hormones were not used, the standards require a disclaimer stating that the FDA has found no difference in milk from cows injected with the synthetic hormone and milk from cows that are not injected. Such disclaimers already are printed on many dairy products. The new regulations also require dairies to maintain procedures to verify any production methods claimed on their labels, including keeping a paper audit trail. (Read "State Revises Hormone Label for Milk", The New York Times for more information)

Pennsylvania was the first state to consider putting such a labeling ban in place, but other states including Washington, Missouri, and Ohio, seem to be following suit by considering regulations similar to those which Pennsylvania abandoned today. New Jersey had until recently taken the matter under consideration but has since determined not to take action.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ruled that rbGH use is safe, serious human and animal health questions remain, and it has been prohibited in Canada and the European Union. U.S. consumers have shown they prefer rBGH-free products, and that they want them labeled as such. In fact, an April 2007 Lake Research Partners national survey shows that eight in ten adults (80%) feel dairy products originating from cows that have not been treated with rBGH should be allowed to be labeled as such.

A broad coalition of groups including consumers, dairies, farming groups, and environmental organizations requested the changes announced today. (You can read the letter here)

Stay tuned for updates and actions on similar labeling bans in other states. If you have not already, please consider sending an email and making a call to Ohio Governor Strickland on this issue as well!

Against the will of Congress and the American public, FDA approves food from cloned animals

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:05:00 +0000

FDA Opens "Pandora's Box" by Approving Food from Clones for Sale

(January 15, 2008) Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) condemned the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) irresponsible determination that milk and meat from cloned animals are safe for sale to the public. In addition, the FDA is requiring no tracking system for clones or labeling of products produced from clones or their offspring. This action comes at a time when the U.S. Senate has voted twice to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies can be completed by the National Academy of Sciences and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

"The FDA's bullheaded action today disregards the will of the public and the Senate - and opens a literal Pandora's Box," said Andrew Kimbrell, CFS Executive Director. "FDA based their decision on an incomplete and flawed review that relies on studies supplied by cloning companies that want to force cloning technology on American consumers. FDA's action has placed the interests of a handful of biotech firms above those of the public they are charged with protecting."

With FDA's release of their controversial risk assessment today, CFS joins dozens of other food industry, consumer, and animal welfare groups, as well as federal lawmakers in calling for swift action on the part of Congress to pass the 2007 Farm Bill containing provisions delaying FDA's release of clones into the food supply. The Farm Bill currently contains an amendment, advanced by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD.) and co-sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), requiring a rigorous and careful review of the human health and economic impacts of allowing cloned food into America's food supply. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill by a vote of 79 to 14.

"The passage of this bill with the Mikulski-Specter amendment sends a strong message that the FDA has failed the public again by taking an inadequate and half-baked look at the safety of food products from cloned animals and their offspring," said Joseph Mendelson, CFS Legal Director. "The FDA's cavalier approach to cloned food and its potential impacts calls for the remedy of a truly rigorous scientific assessment, and Congress has now repeatedly called for such action."
The Farm Bill amendment addresses the gaps and inadequacies of the FDA s current risk assessment, and would go into effect before any food products from clones are marketed. The Farm Bill also directs the USDA to examine consumer acceptance of cloned foods and the likely impacts they could have on domestic and international markets. (Click here for more information on this amendment). Senator Mikulski also released a statement today condemning the FDA's approval of food from clones.

Additionally, the FDA is today issuing a guidance document for food producers; It fails to require any special procedures for tracking or handling food products from clones. It also fails to require labeling of any kind on food products from clones or their offspring, which deprives consumers of their right to know about the origins of their food.

Recently, two cloning companies - Viagen and Trans Ova, proposed the creation of a voluntary cloning registry program. While they advanced claims that the registry would provide consumer protection and transparency without regulation, clones and their progeny will still be dispersed through the food system without any tracking or labeling.

"The cloning industry's proposal is simply another attempt to force cloned milk and meat on consumers and the dairy industry by giving the public phony assurances," said Mendelson. "The proposal neither provides new studies on the safety of clones nor protects the consumers' right to know whether their food or dairy contains products from clones. Once clones are released into America's food supply without any traceability requirements, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to recall them."

Recent opinion polls show the majority of Americans do not want milk or meat from cloned animals in their food. A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers were uncomfortable with animal cloning. A national survey conducted this year by Consumers Union found that 89 percent of Americans want to see cloned foods labeled, while 69 percent said that they have concerns about cloned meat and dairy products in the food supply. A recent Gallup Poll reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believe that it is immoral to clone animals, while the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy milk from cloned animals.

In its risk assessment of cloned food, the FDA claims to have evaluated extensive peer reviewed safety studies to support its conclusion, yet a recent report issued by CFS, Not Ready for Prime Time, shows the assessment only references three peer-reviewed food safety studies, all of which focus on the narrow issue of milk from cloned cows. What is even more disturbing is that these studies were partially funded by the same biotech firms that produce clones for profit.

Read the Washignton Post article on FDA's approval

View FDA's documents released January 15th

Read the executive summary of the Center for Food Safety's report Not Ready for Prime Time
Read the full CFS report.

FDA APPROVAL OF CLONES STALLED BY PASSAGE OF MIKULSKI-SPECTER AMENDMENT IN FARM BILL!

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:56:00 +0000

Bill Passes by an Overwhelming Majority of 79 to 14;Coalition of Consumer, Farmer, and Animal Welfare Groups Praise the Senate’s Action

Washington, DC December 14, 2007 – A broad coalition of consumer, farmer, and animal welfare organizations today applauded passage of a provision in the Senate’s Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) that would delay the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) endorsement of the use of food from cloned animals. This amendment, advanced by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and co-sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), calls for a rigorous and careful review of the human health and economic impacts of bringing cloned food into America’s food supply. The senate overwhelmingly passed the bill this afternoon by a vote of 79 to 14.

“The passage of this bill with the Mikulski-Specter amendment is like a gift for the holidays,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The FDA’s flawed and cavalier approach to cloned food and its potential impacts called for a truly rigorous scientific assessment. At a time when the FDA has repeatedly failed the public, this amendment will ensure that the American consumer is considered before any special interest.”

The amendment requires that two rigorous studies be performed before the FDA is able to issue a final decision on food from clones. The amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a blue-ribbon panel of leading scientists to review the FDA’s initial decision that food from cloned animals is safe. The amendment further requires the NAS to study the potential health impacts of cloned foods entering the nation’s food supply, including the possible effects of lessened milk consumption (due to consumer avoidance of cloned food) leading to development of chronic diseases as a result. The bill also directs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine consumer acceptance of cloned foods and the likely impacts they could have on domestic and international markets.

“The FDA risk assessment ignored the fact that most clones never make it to adulthood because they die in gestation or shortly after birth, and also failed to consider whether clones might need more drug treatments,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union. “We agree with the Senate that the NAS should take another look at the safety questions.”

During a public comment period that ended earlier this year, the FDA heard from more than 150,000 consumers rejecting the Agency’s proposed plan to introduce clones into the U.S. food supply. In addition, dozens of members of the meat and dairy industries and nonprofit organizations urged the FDA to consider comments from the widest possible sample of Americans in consideration of the untested nature of cloning technology.

“Animal protection advocates support scientific advancement, but cloning lacks any legitimate social value and decreases animal welfare in a dramatic way,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Today, the U.S. Senate slowed down the application of this bad idea, and we hope the House follows its lead.”

“Polls have repeatedly shown that consumers are wary of food from cloned animals,” said Chris Waldrop, Director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America. “We need a much more comprehensive assessment of the potential implications of allowing food from cloned animals into the food supply. The Mikulski-Specter amendment would assure that these important issues are thoroughly reviewed before FDA is allowed to issue its final risk assessment.”

Passage of this bill with the Mikulski-Specter amendment comes at a time when the public’s opposition to food from clones has never been higher. A national survey conducted this year by Consumers Union found that 89 percent of Americans want to see cloned foods labeled, while 69 percent said that they have concerns about cloned meat and dairy products in the food supply. A recent Gallup Poll reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believe that it is immoral to clone animals, while the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won’t buy milk from cloned animals.

“The surveys show that the public is morally opposed to cloning. Animals suffer terribly in the cloning process, and the FDA has ignored these issues,” said Tracie Letterman, Executive Director of the American Anti-Vivisection Society. “This amendment will allow these discussions to take place.”

“With the public increasingly concerned about the treatment of farm animals,” said Julie Janovsky, Campaign Director for Farm Sanctuary, “the Mikulski- Specter amendment acknowledges the fact that cloning may lead to even harsher conditions for animals used to produce food”.

In its risk assessment of cloned food, the FDA claims to have evaluated extensive peer reviewed safety studies to support its conclusion, yet a recent report issued by the Center for Food Safety, Not Ready for Prime Time, shows the assessment only references three peer-reviewed food safety studies, all of which focus on the narrow issue of milk from cloned cows. What is even more disturbing is that these studies were partially funded by the same biotech firms that produce clones for profit. None of the studies focus on the safety of meat from cloned cows or pigs, or milk or meat from the offspring of cloned animals, and there was absolutely no data on milk or meat from cloned goats – all major issues critical to determining the safety of the proposal.

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND CONSUMERS UNION CHALLENGE GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER’S VETO OF CLONED FOOD BILL ON FEDERAL PREEMPTION GROUNDS

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:16:00 +0000

Groups to Introduce Similar Cloned Food Labeling Bill Next Legislative Session

San Francisco—The Center for Food Safety and Consumers Union today sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger and members of the California Legislature challenging Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent veto of the California Cloned Food Labeling Act (SB 63). The bill, introduced by Senator Migden, would have required labeling of milk, meat and dairy products from cloned animals. The letter criticizes the Governor’s claim that SB 63 is pre-empted by federal law, calling this reasoning “legally unsound, disingenuous and inaccurate.” A copy of the letter can be found at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CA_cloning_letter.doc

The groups pledge to help introduce a similar cloned food labeling bill in California in the next legislative session. Federal law applies only to meat, not dairy products. The Governor’s veto only referred to the federal meat labeling law, a tacit acknowledgement of this fact. “Currently there is a blank slate in the area of food from cloned animals, and state lawmakers can create dairy labeling statutes without fear of federal preemption,” explained Rebecca Spector, Center for Food Safety’s West Coast Director.

Experts say milk, cheese and other dairy products from cloned animals will be the first such food products to reach California stores, and will make up the vast majority of the cloned food market.

There are two federal laws that address meat labeling. However according to the two groups, they do not preempt cloned meat labeling in California. “Neither of these laws even mentions cloned meat, so they simply don’t apply,” Spector said.

“Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto is a slap in the face to a majority of consumers who say they want milk and meat from cloned animals to be labeled,” said Elisa Odabashian, Consumers Union’s West Coast Director. “Without labeling, not only will consumers be unable to choose whether or not to buy cloned food, but government food safety agencies will be unable to track any long-term impacts of cloned food on human health.” According to a recent survey by Consumers Union, more than 89 percent of Americans want food from cloned animals to be labeled.

At the federal level, the groups, along with, the Consumer Federation of America, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, and Union of Concerned Scientists, are also urging the inclusion of a recent amendment concerning food products from cloned animals in the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). Amendment No. 3524, introduced by Senators Mikulski and Specter, would ensure that the potential human health, animal health, and economic impacts associated with animal cloning that are missing from the FDA’s risk assessment are fully analyzed before any products derived from clones are introduced into the food market. The organizations are deeply concerned over the Food and Drug Administration’s issuance of an inadequate draft risk assessment that endorses the safety of milk and meat derived from cloned animals and their progeny.

The issuance of the final risk assessment, which could happen as early as January, 2008, would pave the way for the unfettered commercialization of meat and milk from cloned animals without labeling requirements.

Support Amendment to Stop Animal Cloning in the Farm Bill!

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:08:00 +0000

The FDA will soon make a final decision on whether food from cloned animals is safe to enter our food supply. They released their preliminary risk assessment in December and received over 145,000 public comments opposing the unlabeled introduction of meat and milk from animal clones.

We need to know more before the FDA releases cloned animals into our food supply. The health risks associated with the consumption of food products from cloned animals is not well documented or available to consumers. Denmark has already banned food from cloned animals and the entire European Union is examining this closely. The California state legislature recently passed a bill requiring labeling of products from clones animals, and though the Governor vetoed it, it is a clear sign that consumers do not want this technology on their plates.

To address these concerns, Senators Mikulski and Specter have introduced an amendment (Amendment #3524) to the Farm Bill to address the need for more information about food products from cloned animals. The studies focus on elements not included in the FDA initial risk assessment:

- Implications of permitting food from cloned animals into the food supply, particularly meat and milk exports shifts that would take place as other countries react and potentially ban exports from the United States;
- Effectiveness of programs already in place at USDA to monitor food products from cloned animals;
- Documentation of the health effects and costs attributed to milk from cloned animals in the food supply; and
- Evaluation of the potential public health effects and associated health care costs attributable to the commercialization of food from cloned animals

The FDA should not be permitted to issue the final risk assessment on the safety of cloned animals and food products derived from cloned animals until these studies are done.

Please take a moment to contact your Senators and tell them you SUPPORT Senator Mikulski and Specter’s amendment (#3524) to delay cloning until we know more.

Eleven Plaintiffs File Complaint to Stop USDA’s Dangerous "Over 30 month Rule," Address Mad Cow Risks

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:13:00 +0000

(October 30, 2007) Billings, Mont. - R-CALF USA, along with 10 other plaintiffs, has filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the District Court - District of South Dakota, Northern Division (District Court) in an effort to prevent the agency decision from opening the Canadian border to imports of live cattle born after March 1, 1999, and beef products from cattle over 30 months of age. USDA's decision, often referred to as the OTM (over 30 month) Rule, is scheduled to take effect Nov. 19. Eleven cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) have been detected in Canadian-born cattle, seven since the beginning of last year. Individual plaintiffs include South Dakota cattle producers Herman Schumacher, Robert Mack, Ernie Mertz, and Wayne Nelson. Plaintiff organizations include: the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; the Center for Food Safety; the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation; Food & Water Watch; Public Citizen, which has 90,000 members; and, the Consumer Federation of America, with 50 million members.

"The OTM rule creates an unjustified and unnecessary increased risk of infection of the U.S. cattle herd with BSE, and of importing beef contaminated with BSE into the U.S., which will expose U.S. consumers to increased risk of a fatal disease," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. "By USDA's own analysis, it is a virtual certainty that the OTM Rule will result in the importation of Canadian cattle infected with BSE, the meat from which will enter the U.S. food supply, and that the OTM Rule also will result in the importation of billions of pounds of meat from OTM cattle slaughtered in Canada, which almost certainly include products from cattle infected with BSE. There also lies the possibility of contamination of U.S. cattle feed caused from the use of Canadian cattle products, like blood, in the manufacturing of cattle feed."

"The OTM Rule will expose U.S. cattle producers to severe economic hardship because of the reduced marketability of U.S. beef as a result of commingling domestic product with potentially contaminated beef of Canadian origin," he continued. "We have export customers who refuse to accept beef from the United States unless it is segregated from Canadian product. R-CALF does not believe opening the Canadian border to older cattle and all beef products will increase our export markets. These all are risks that R-CALF finds unacceptable. Unfortunately, USDA seems all too willing to put the interests of a few big multinational companies ahead of the much larger concerns of the country's beef consumers and the 800,000 independent cattle producers in the United States."

"It's hard to fathom why the USDA would move to eliminate a critical protection against BSE at a time when the public is increasingly concerned about the safety of imported foods," said Chris Waldrop, Director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of America.
"The decision to allow risky older cattle from Canada to enter the U.S. shows once again that the USDA is more concerned about facilitating trade than protecting consumers' health," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Until the U.S. strengthens the rules for preventing the spread of BSE when cattle are slaughtered, we have no business importing older cattle from a country where the disease is prevalent."

"Consumers expect the government to protect the food supply from the risk of BSE, but instead USDA has taken an illegal step that creates a new food import health risk," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety.

--BSE is an unusual disease that requires an unusually vigilant response. If cattle in the U.S. become infected, there is no drug that can keep them from dying, and there is no vaccine that can keep them from getting infected. The same is true for the human version, which is believed to come from consuming infected meat.

--The stakes are enormous: The 2003 discovery of a single case of BSE in a cow imported into the U.S. from Canada virtually shut down the U.S. beef export market, which is still trying to recover, costing the industry (and the U.S. balance of trade) billions of dollars.

--Since even a single incident of BSE infection would do serious damage to U.S. beef exports and has the potential as well to introduce an incurable disease into the U.S. cattle herd, no one should take comfort in USDA s predictions that there will be only a "negligible" amount of infected cattle and beef coming from Canada.

--Canada imported BSE-infected cattle from the UK in the 1990s. There is no indication that the U.S. ever did. Canada continues to find BSE even in cattle born as little as four years ago. Both of the only cases found in U.S.-born cattle were in animals born in the early 1990s. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has cautioned that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to test positive for BSE than U.S. cattle.

--Worldwide experience shows that banning cattle parts from cattle feed is not enough. BSE contamination of other types of feed can infect cattle through cross-contamination at the feed mill, mis-feeding at the farm, and other unavoidable routes. Canada attributes its recent cases of BSE to just such a source, and the Canadian government this summer started keeping cattle parts out of all animal feed. But Canadian cattle parts will now be entering the U.S., where they can still be used in animal feed and can still contaminate U.S. cattle. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recently told the U.S. that it has insufficient safeguards to prevent the spread of BSE for that reason.

--No one knows how many BSE-infected cattle there are or were in Canada. We know there were considerably more than the 11 cases discovered in Canadian-born cattle, because other infected cattle had to have been butchered or rendered to result in contamination of the feed of the 11 cattle discovered in three different provinces. We also know that many cattle that ate the same feed as the cattle found to have BSE were slaughtered and likely used in part to make animal feed. R-CALF USA agrees that Canada does not appear to have a BSE epidemic as severe as that of the United Kingdom, but relatively few cases in imported Canadian cattle can still cause BSE in the U.S. cattle herd that would take many years to eradicate.

--Because there may be a lag of up to seven years or more between when a calf becomes infected and when that infection has taken over its brain enough to be detected, there can be many cases of BSE-infected cattle in Canada that are not detected before they are imported into the U.S. or before they are slaughtered in Canada for export to the United States. For the same reason, U.S. feedlots, slaughterhouses, and border inspectors do not have the ability to keep BSE-infected Canadian cattle out of the U.S. or out of the human food chain. Likewise, there is no test for BSE contamination in meat or in blood products.

"USDA is downplaying the risk of BSE, and this is one of those situations where a low probability of a very bad consequence is not acceptable," Bullard concluded. "If BSE is introduced into the U.S. herd, there is no test that can find all the infected animals and no medication that can stop its spread. Hoping that the problem will go away without demonstrable evidence that it will is folly, and knowingly importing infected cattle and meat when scientists agree we do not have sufficient safeguards in place to prevent the spread of the disease is unjustifiable."

Genetically Engineered Corn Study Shows Potential Harm To Stream Wildlife Near Farms

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:48:00 +0000

Center for Food Safety Calls for Further Investigation and Rigorous Testing Standards for Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops

Washington D.C., October 10, 2007 - Today, the Center for Food Safety voiced concern regarding a study issued by a team of researchers on the potential harm posed by the genetically engineered (GE) Bt variety of corn. The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, establishes that pollen and other material from Bt corn is washing into streams and river headwaters. The study further found through laboratory trials that Bt corn material is toxic to insects that play an important role in aquatic ecosystems. As a result, Bt corn may pose a serious threat to our nation's waterways and the plants, fish and animals that inhabit them.

"This is yet another example of a government agency granting clearance for a GE organism without requiring meaningful or stringent testing," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Bt corn is planted widely throughout the U.S. Had a study like this been done prior to the government's approval, we would not be looking at a popular crop that has the potential to broadly disrupt the environment."

Bt corn is engineered to include a pesticide-producing gene that targets the European corn borer and other pasts that can inhabit corn fields. It was licensed for use in 1996. By 2006, 40 percent of corn acreage planted in the U.S. was genetically modified with the Bt trait, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The new study further reports that in lab trails, caddisflies - insects closely related to the corn pests - are killed when exposed to the Bt toxin, and concluded that stream flies "that consume Bt corn litter may experience reduced growth, which can negatively influence fitness, because adult size of aquatic insects is directly related to fecundity."

Caddisflies are imperative to healthy, normally functioning stream ecosystems; they serve as food for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

This report is only the latest identification of a problem posed by poor federal oversight of genetically altered crops. Contamination of many of the nation's rice farms by a GE variety has rendered much of American rice unsuitable for sale overseas. Earlier this year, a court ruled that Round-up Ready alfalfa was never fully tested by regulatory agencies to determine environmental impacts and may pose a threat to organic and conventional varieties of the crop.

"From rice to Bt corn, we are only finding out about the threats posed by GE crops after they have been cleared by government regulatory agencies," continued Mendelson. "The federal government's slipshod approach to testing threatens the environment, organic food production, and our farmer's livelihoods. It's time we all demand more accountability from biotech firms and more stringent regulations from USDA and FDA."

The report, Toxins In Transgenic Crop Byproducts May Affect Headwater Stream Ecosystems, was written by Todd V. Royer of Indiana University, Emma Rosi-Marshall of Loyola University Chicago, Jennifer Tank of the University of Notre Dame and Matt Whiles of Southern Illinois University. It was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Center for Food Safety Voices Support of Legal Action Protecting the Integrity of Organic Milk Labels

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:46:00 +0000

Center Says Private Legal Action Will Help Enforce Organic Labeling Requirements and Uphold Organic Standards to Maintain Public Trust

Washington D.C., October 17, 2007 - Today, the Center for Food Safety voiced support for a private class action lawsuit filed by consumers against Aurora Organic Dairy that alleges the company misled organic milk purchasers by producing milk from several of its dairy farms in violation of existing organic requirements. The class action lawsuit resulted after a two-year USDA investigation found that Aurora violated 14 provisions of the Organic Food Production Act.

"We applaud the USDA for diligently investigating consumer concerns over Aurora's practices and for initially determining that Aurora Organic Dairy willfully violated the law," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director, Center for Food Safety. As result of the investigation, USDA later entered in a consent agreement directing Aurora to stop organic production at one facility and make numerous changes in its operations.

"While the USDA has exposed Aurora, the agency action could not make whole all of the organic milk consumers who purchased Aurora milk. In situations like this where the USDA cannot act to fully protect consumers and the integrity of the organic standards, the lawsuit filed today shows that consumer watchdogs will take action."

The complaint filed today alleges that the illegal activities identified by USDA at Aurora's facilities should not have allowed the company to label its milk as "organic" and that such labeling resulted in extensive consumer deception The suit seeks to recoup damages for consumers who purchased the organic milk, and other sanctions seeking limits on Aurora's ability to market organic products.

"The action filed today will ensure that there are the teeth in the organic law. It is needed in order to ensure that American consumers can trust the USDA Organic label. It will send a powerful message that organic standards must be maintained, ensuring that those consumers who choose to buy organic are not deceived," added Mendelson.

Aurora Organic Dairy is the leading private-label organic milk processor. They supply store brands nationwide, including Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Wild Oats, Safeway, and many other grocery chains.

The Center for Food Safety is at the forefront in protecting the integrity of U.S. organic standards and food labels. In early July, the Center filed a complaint and legal petition with the USDA, urging the agency to enforce the reliability of the U.S. organic food label by preventing the misleading practice of labeling seafood imports which have not met US organic standards as "organic."

Wassup With Budweiser Using GE Rice?

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:41:00 +0000

Greenpeace today released the results of analysis showing the presence of an untested experimental genetically-engineered strain of rice at a mill in Arkansas which is operated by Anheuser-Busch to brew Budweiser. Greenpeace also put out a funny spoof of the "Wassup" Bud ad on You Tube.

According to the groups' press release, an independent laboratory, commissioned by Greenpeace, detected the presence of GE rice (Bayer LL601) in three out of four samples taken at the mill. The experimental GE rice is one of three rice varieties that were first found in 2006 to have contaminated rice stocks in the US. Since then, GE contamination has been found in approximately 30 per cent of US rice stocks.

"US beer drinkers need Anheuser-Busch to explain why it is not preventing use of this genetically-engineered rice in the US. If, as the company has informed Greenpeace, all of the
Budweiser exported from the US or manufactured outside of the US is guaranteed GE free then Anheuser-Busch needs to state this publicly, and explain the double standard," said Stabinsky.

Greenpeace says they informed Anheuser-Busch of the test results prior to their release and sought clear information from the company on the extent of contamination and its global policy on the use of GE ingredients. Anheuser-Busch responded that the rice is approved in the US and is not used in brewing Budweiser destined for export. The full extent of the contamination remains unclear, however.

LL601 GE rice was retroactively granted approval by the US Dept of Agriculture in an effort to reduce public concern and company liability despite 15,000 public objections. This GE rice is not approved outside the US so the Budweiser brewed with it could not be sold abroad.

Anheuser-Busch is the largest single rice buyer in the US, buying 6-10 per cent of the annual US rice crop. Budweiser is one of only a few beers having rice as an ingredient. The brand is found in around 60 countries through a mix of exports and local brewing arrangements.

"We are asking Anheuser-Busch to make a global commitment to produce all of its beer GE free. Anything less will leave a bad taste in the mouth of Budweiser drinkers." said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace.

USDA Report on Biotech Rice Reaffirms Agency's Do-Nothing Approach to GE Crop Contamination

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:50:00 +0000

In a long-awaited report released Friday afternoon on widespread contamination of the U.S. rice supply by an unapproved genetically engineered (GE) variety, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would take no enforcement action against Bayer, the producer of the untested GE rice. Remarkably, the USDA report also reveals that the agency has no formal rules requiring biotech companies to retain records of their experimental field trials
or to require companies to keep seed samples for genetic tests, which are essential in detecting and tracking potential sources of contamination.

“Once again we find out too late that the government is uninterested in protecting farmers, consumers or the environment from genetic crop experiments,” said Joseph Mendelson III, Legal Director for the Center for Food Safety. “Bayer’s failure to keep these untested rice genes out of our natural food supply has crippled our rice industry and left hundreds of farmers with rice they can’t sell, and without the safe seed they need. It’s shameful that USDA refuses to hold Bayer responsible.”

The genetic contamination incidents, first disclosed in August 2006, have disrupted sales and planting for rice farmers throughout the US southern rice-growing region and caused a crash in U.S. rice exports, after Europe, Japan and other buyers closed their markets to U.S. rice. The EU was a major importer of long-grain rice from the US, purchasing 198,000 tons worth $67 million in 2005.

The USDA press release is available here

Topps to close in the wake of e. coli recall

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:45:00 +0000

the NY Times has a long article on the Topps recall today; the last two paragraphs say:

"According to industry experts, the size of the Topps recall was probably related to the company’s practice of “carrying over” meat from one day’s production to the next, without giving the older meat a separate batch number. The practice is not in itself illegal or unsafe, the experts said, but in the event of a problem, like an identified case of E. coli, the mixing of several days’ production makes it harder for officials to know the extent of the contamination.

Michele Williams, a spokeswoman for Topps, declined to comment on whether Topps carries over meat without giving it a separate batch number. But Ms. Eamich, the Agriculture Department spokeswoman, said the company did carry over beef. "

More simply, carryover means if you have e. coli in a batch of ground beef on Monday, and you take some of Monday's batch and mix it into Tuesday's, you have now contaminated ALL of Tuesday's meat. And if you take Tuesday's and mix it into Wednesday's, that batch is now contaminated, and on and on for as long as you keep doing this. If this is standard practice, as it appears it was for Topps, a recall can stretch back indefinitely.

The phrase, "The practice is not in itself illegal or unsafe...," is a scary one. It is a sobering reminder that it is LEGAL unsafe practices like this that encourage outbreaks and mass recalls.

News Bites

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:14:00 +0000

The New York Times has been on a roll this week with several good stories. Denise Caruso, Times columnist, executive director of The Hybrid Vigor Institute and author of the fabulous book Intervention, has a must-read article "A Challenge to Gene Theory, A Tougher Look at Biotech," reporting on a study challenging the 'one gene = one protein' assumption. Caruso delves into gene patenting and the very basic assumptions behind genetic engineering:

"Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the consortium’s findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.

“The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics,” said Professor Heinemann, who writes and teaches extensively on biosafety issues.

“Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently,” he said, “regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network effects.”

Yet to date, every attempt to challenge safety claims for biotech products has been categorically dismissed, or derided as unscientific.

In another NYT gem, Andrew Martin has a good overview of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) in his article "Labels Lack Food's Origin Despite Law." Martin explains why COOL has been held up for so long (meat industry lobbying, for one thing), and the possibilities for implementation (again) in the new Farm Bill. Though if the 2002 Farm Bill is any indication, we're going to have to do a lot more than rely on the Ag Committee to get the law enforced. My favorite quote in the article supports the typical mantra of "voluntary" labeling:

“No one was prohibited from putting labels on products,” said former Representative Henry Bonilla, Republican of Texas, who as head of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture pushed through delays of mandatory origin labeling. “If consumers wanted this, they could have demanded it.”

Gee, and here I thought that's what we did five years ago when the law was passed. I guess we were supposed to enforce it ourselves as well. Volunteer labeling brigade, anyone?

Not suprisingly, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending, Mr. Bonilla received $158,328 in campaign funds in 2006 from the livestock industry, making him the top recipient in Congress. He was also the top recipient in 2004, with $132,900, and ranked second in 2002, with $78,350. The article goes on to say that "Mr. Bonilla does not dispute that he delayed the labeling law from taking effect. But he said it was a bad idea..." Thankfully, Mr. Bonilla is no longer in the House of Representatives, and his seat on the subcommittee has been filled by the far more sensible Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) who ends the article with the optimistic quote, "There will be mandatory COOL by 2008 at the latest."

Irradiation in the news. Well, here we are at the close of the comment period for FDA's proposed changes to the labeling requirements on irradiated foods. As more than 28,000 citizen comments collected by the Center for Food Safety and Food and Water Watch opposing the changes are delivered to the FDA, stories abound about irradiated produce being imported into the US. The NYT (I know, enough with the the NYT already) has a story about fruit from Thailand which has been barred from US soil until now. The USDA recently announced that the Thai fruits will be accepted provided they are irradiated. A similar import restriction on mangos from India was also recently lifted under condition that they too be irradiated, though stories are already circulating about the poor quality of those irradiated mangos.

In the biggest surprise of the day, the Produce Marketing Association released a statement supporting consumer disclosure on irradiated produce, and saying of the FDA's proposed change in language "Our concern is that by changing the labeling requirements from “irradiated” to “cold pasteurized” or some other phrase may only confuse the public and could even be perceived as misleading." Ya think? Though the PMA does support the use of irradiation, it is more than refreshing to see such a trade association support consumers' right to know and choose.

Fast Track Trade Authority: Dead (Again) at 33. The president's "fast-track" trade authority expired at midnight on June 30th, and is unlikely to be returned to him by Congress. Fast-track authority allows the president to make international trade agreements without debate or amendments in Congress - just a simple yes or no vote after the executive branch has already chosen the trade partner, negotiated the terms, and even signed the agreement. It also allows "the decider" to ram through trade agreements with little, if any, input from American farmers or citizens which has proven to be more than a little detrimental. Fast-track, after all, is responsible for both NAFTA and the WTO among other damaging trade agreements. Marc R. aka Mental Massala has a great post at the Ethicurean, "International Trade Agreements and Your Food" that has a very good overview of the issue and a welcome plea to journalists and politicians to stop calling every lousy agreement "free trade."

Our friends at Public Citizen, who have been working on trade issues for years published an "obituary" for fast track trade authority that is highly informative, terribly clever and yes, a little funny.

Shameless Self-Promotion. Not to toot our own horn (too late, I hear you say), but CFS's new book, Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food has received some very good press recently. Carol Ness discussed the book with author Andrew Kimbrell in her story Food Conscious: The Shoppers GMO Guide, in the San Francisco Chronicle (it even has a short-list of the book's "Pocket Shopper's Guide" to avoiding GE foods). In other press, Alternet's Vanja Petrovich interviews Kimbrell about the book, genetically engineered food and the state of food safety (or lack thereof) in the U.S. in her story "There's A Lot You Don't Know About What's in Your Food".

Citizens, Consumer Groups Oppose Proposed Irradiation Labeling Change - 28,000 Submit Comments to FDA

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:13:00 +0000

More than 28,000 citizens oppose a Food & Drug Administration proposal to permit industry to mislabel irradiated food with alternate terms such as 'pasteurization’ or to remove the requirement for labeling altogether, announced consumer watchdog organizations Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety today. This change by FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation.

"Food irradiation is an uncontrolled experiment using millions of Americans as guinea pigs," said Heather Whitehead of the Center for Food Safety. "Given the growing scientific evidence of the dangers of irradiated food, it is unconscionable that FDA would consider hiding irradiation behind misleading words like 'pasteurization.'"

"Consumers have a right to know if their food has been exposed to ionizing radiation," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "FDA should be implementing rules that guarantee that right, not allowing the meat and irradiation industries to mislead consumers into buying something they might otherwise avoid."

Irradiation destroys vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids and other nutrients – up to 80 percent of vitamin A in eggs and half the beta carotene in orange juice, the FDA has noted. In some foods, the process forms chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. One group of chemicals, called 2-ACBs, has been linked to tumor growth in rats and genetic damage in human cells.

"This FDA proposal is a bad case of déjà vu," continued Whitehead. "In poll after poll, consumers have rejected the weakening of labeling rules for irradiated food. Thousands of consumers submitted comments opposing a similar proposal by FDA in 1999. Now in 2007 the comments submitted show consumers still want accurate labeling."

Consumers have long been reluctant to purchase irradiated foods. Only a small percentage of the U.S. food supply is irradiated, and efforts to sell irradiated ground beef to public schools through the National School Lunch Program have failed to produce a single order. In 2004, a leading irradiation company called SureBeam filed for bankruptcy.

The push to change the labeling rules for irradiated food is not a new one. In 2002, the Farm Bill instructed the FDA to re-examine its labeling rules, which require irradiated food to bear the radura symbol and a disclosure statement (‘treated with irradiation’ or ‘treated by irradiation.’)

“The FDA’s proposal is a gift to the irradiation industry, which has been struggling for years," Hauter concluded. "The public is no more enthusiastic about changing the label than it is about irradiated food itself."

The Center for Food Safety and Food & Water Watch urge FDA to abandon this proposed rule change. The groups also alerted consumers across the country about the agency’s dangerous proposal, resulting in more than 28,000 public comments opposing the proposal.

News Bites

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:23:00 +0000

Farm Bill Could Hamstring State Food Safety Agencies
Forty consumer, environmental, farmer and animal welfare groups today announced their opposition to a sweeping provision in the 2007 Farm Bill that wipes out critical state and local authority to protect food safety, the environment, and humane animal treatment. The provision, Section 123 of Title I, was quietly inserted in the House bill several weeks ago by the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee.
Read More
Take Action

Despite massive contamination and loss of markets, Bayer planting more genetically engineered rice in Arkansas
A story in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reveals that this spring, Bayer Crop-Science planted four 0. 2-acre plots of LLRICE 62 near Proctor, Newport, Stuttgart and Tillar, according to the state Plant Board. Since USDA's announcement in August that long grain rice had been contaminated with another Bayer rice variety, and a second contamination episode announced in March, according to the Democrat Gazette "sales in nearly half of all U. S. rice export markets have been harmed, resulting in everything from required testing to the complete cessation of trade, according to the USA Rice Federation".

The Arkansas Plant Board reportedly found out about the planting by filing a Freedom of Information Act request after rumors about the planting began to circulate. Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety was quoted as saying “After all that’s happened, it’s unbelievable that the state would give Bayer another chance to contaminate Arkansas rice."

Whole Foods goes to court
In what is becoming a rather ridiculous display of government inconsistency, Whole Foods is going to court next month to object to the FTC's block of the merger between the company and rival Wild Oats. The FTC filed a lawsuit on June 5 to block Whole Foods' acquisition of Wild Oats, saying the combination will cause "significant harm to the consumer." The suit argues that Wild Oats and Whole Foods are "one another's closest competitor" in 21 markets. This merger challenge comes despite there being NO challenge to the mergers between Monsanto and Delta Pine Land approved earlier this month (giving Monsanto a near complete monopoly on the cotton market), or the Smithfield-Premium Standard Farms merger last month (giving Smithfield control of 30% of the pork market).

Whole Foods argues that the FTC did not take mainstream supermarkets, most of which are quickly becoming competitors in the organic and natural foods market, into consideration. Aimee Witteman had a great post on the merger hullabaloo last week at Gristmill, where she lays out the inconsistencies in anti-trust cases in US food and agricultural companies, the integration of these industries, and how it might be addressed.

Our friend Sam Fromartz (author of Organic, Inc.) also has an interesting post at his blog Chews Wise, breaking down the arguments for and against - and the commentary surrounding - the embattled merger (if you have not yet added Sam's Chews Wise blog to your list of favorites or RSS feeds, we highly recommend that you do!).

Comment Period on Labeling for Irradiated Foods Set to Close July 3rd
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please take a moment to send your comment to FDA on their proposal to weaken labeling requirements, and in some cases remove labeling entirely, on irradiated foods! The last comment period FDA had on this subject generated 5,000 comments in opposition according to some reports - so many that they backed off at the time. We have already generated more than twice that many for this comment period, and we need more to ensure this risky proposal is rejected!

New book from CFS! Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:52:00 +0000

Are you shopping in the dark? Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food provides a comprehensive and up-to-the-minute guide on the very real dangers genetically engineered foods present to our health, the environment, and farm communities. Written by Andrew Kimbrell with a foreword by Nell Newman, this book provides you with all the necessary tools to understand this critical food issue, to choose to avoid GE foods and to become an active participant in the fight for an organic, environmentally sustainable and socially just food future. The book also contains a pull-out “Pocket Shopper’s Guide to GE Foods” that lists what products to buy in order to avoid GE ingredients. The special hard cover edition includes a DVD of the award-winning documentary film The Future of Food.

Here’s what people are saying about Your Right to Know:

“Andrew Kimbrell, America’s leading critic of genetically modified crops, has written a lively and comprehensive field guide to this treacherous new landscape that both citizens and consumers will find indispensable.” - Michael Pollan

“In this important primer, Kimbrell explains the threats that GE foods pose to our health, our environment, and our farming communities. He reminds us that the everyday decisions we make about the food we eat have the power to change the world.” – Alice Waters

“The genetic manipulators are not merely messing with your food — they’re messing with you, your children, and your environment. Kimbrell’s book and handy shopping guide gives you what you need to fight back. Digest this book... And go forth!” - Jim Hightower

“This book will be an invaluable resource to the American public in understanding the hazards of GE foods. Their informed choice to avoid these foods will have a positive impact on our farms, communities, and biodiversity worldwide.” – Vandana Shiva

“..This new book by Andrew Kimbrell is wise, sane, and reliable. It will enable you to make informed and healthy choices. It’s the answer we’ve been needing.” – John Robbins

Get your copy today!

From Port to Plate: Who's Checking for Safety?

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:17:00 +0000

By now, few of us haven’t heard about the recent pet food recalls, and the tragic deaths of over 4,000 pets due to contaminated wheat products imported from China. But what many of us haven’t heard is that these contaminated ingredients have also made their way into the human food supply. We also haven’t heard much about how these contaminated ingredients slipped into the U.S., what this says about the safety and security of our food supply, or the efficacy of continuing to put the politics of international trade and its ensuing corporate profits before the health and safety of the American public.

First we were told that none of the adulterated wheat gluten or rice protein had made its way into the human food supply, and then we were informed that more than 6,000 hogs had eaten contaminated “salvaged” pet food, and were to be quarantined and kept off the market. Next it was chickens - 3 million of them, slaughtered, butchered and presumably eaten by unsuspecting consumers. Then 20 million more chickens, and then another 50,000 hogs. Then we found out that melamine-contaminated feed was also used at dozens of fish farms and hatcheries in the U.S. and Canada. U.S. officials then announced that the purported Chinese wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate, were actually just wheat flour.

Food causes an estimated 76 million illnesses and 5,000 deaths in the U.S. every year. While imports of food soared to more than 9 million shipments last year, the frightening truth is that FDA inspects less than 1% of these imports. If pets hadn’t started falling ill and dying, chances are they never would have caught the adulterated food. In a typical look-only-where-the-light-is reaction, the agency is now focusing almost entirely on inspecting imports of ingredients like wheat gluten, but the import of processed foods, meat and farmed seafood products from China has continued virtually unchecked, despite the fact that China is a major U.S. supplier of farm-raised shrimp, tilapia, catfish and other fish that more than likely received the same contaminated feed.

So why don’t we simply ban imports of food from China and other countries with food safety standards more lax than ours? And why does the U.S., the world’s largest exporter of wheat, need to import wheat products from China anyway? Importing products from countries like China, where food safety standards, employee wages, and other production costs are lower than those in the U.S. translates into massive profits for corporations. Stopping imports from an important international trade partner like China would spell disaster for big agribusiness in the U.S. In the end, it is American consumers, farmers and ranchers, and “outsourced” workers who pay the price.

With the amount of food coming into, and produced in, the country one would think FDA would be inspecting, testing and recalling contaminated products routinely, but the agency is woefully understaffed and underfunded, and often lacks the authority to do their job effectively. Even former FDA Commissioner Kessler warned at a recent Congressional hearing, "Our food-safety system in this country is broken." FDA actually developed an import-safety plan five years ago that went nowhere, and has asked for the authority to block imports from countries connected to contamination incidents until they put standards comparable to our own in place. But lawmakers wouldn’t pass it, likely because US food companies spend over a billion dollars a year lobbying against such regulations. But with food contamination incidents steadily rising, the tide seems to be turning in the halls of Congress.

This year the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent, investigative arm of Congress, added the country’s food safety system to its list of “high risk” operations, and recommended that all food safety matters be regulated by one agency. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), recently introduced a bill in the House to do just that, and Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Schumer (D-NY) have introduced a companion bill in the Senate.

The “Food Safety Act” would create an independent “Food Safety Administration” to oversee the nation’s food supply by combining portions of the 12 agencies that now oversee some part of food system. While talks of an independent, single food safety agency have gone on for nearly ten years, it seems at long last it may finally get some traction. Now if we could only ensure that said "Food Safety Administration" would not be in the pocket of Corporate America, we might have something.

News Bites

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:00:00 +0000

Monsanto pressures FDA to restrict rBGH-free labeling
Several large dairy producers and food companies have made news recently by getting rid of recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, from their milk supply. This is great news for consumers, since this genetically engineered growth hormone is known to cause harm to cows and may pose health risks to humans.

In yet another attack on consumers' right to know, Monsanto, the company that makes rBGH under the trade name Posilac, has asked the Food and Drug Administration to restrict the use of labels identifying “rBGH-free” or “rBST-free” dairy products. Monsanto claims such labels are "misleading" to consumers, and infer that dairy products without such a label are inferior. FDA approved the use of voluntary labels more than 12 years ago at the request of dairy companies seeking to respond to customer concerns over the use of the genetically engineered hormone. Since FDA refused to require mandatory labeling of dairy products from cows treated with rBGH, voluntary labeling by non-adopters is the only label consumers can count on to make informed decisions. If Monsanto succeeds in convincing FDA to restrict rBGH-free labeling, consumers will lose valuable information about how their food is produced. Protect your right to know - Send an email to the FDA today

Florida bans non-native and genetically altered fish in open water aquaculture
The Southern Shrimp Alliance and the Center for Food Safety praised the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FL DACS) for new rules governing farm-raising of fish in Florida's ocean waters. FL DACS created the task force in April 2005 in response to calls for stringent guidelines governing the growing open water aquaculture industry. Their draft standards, completed in April 2006, underwent rigorous review by Florida agencies for eight months. The resulting "Best Management Practices Manual" was released to the public in December 2006 for comments, and was officially finalized in May.

The Center for Food Safety strongly urged FL DACS to ban use of non-native and altered fish in open ocean aquaculture during development of the Best Practices, as Florida is already experiencing the effects from fish farm escapes. Spotted tilapia, Orinoco sailfin catfish, and the oscar are just a few of the non-native fish that have escaped from fish farms and established themselves in Florida waters. Federal regulations governing aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico are currently in the process of being drafted. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, an advisory body, is working on an open water aquaculture plan that would apply outside Florida waters.

Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical Rice Is Not the Solution to Diarrhea
Drugs in Rice Not Approved by FDA, Will Likely Contaminate Foods
Genetically engineered, pharmaceutical rice is not a safe or cost-effective solution for infants suffering from diarrhea, concludes an exhaustive report by the Center for Food Safety, as the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) considered whether to allow planting of up to 3,200 acres of the rice in Junction City, Kansas this spring. The report discusses potential adverse health impacts of the rice-grown drugs, which have not been approved by the FDA.

Developed by California-based Ventria Bioscience, the rice is engineered with modified human genes to serve as a “biofactory” for production of synthetic human milk proteins that have antimicrobial and other drug-like properties. Ventria has proposed using the rice-extracted protein drugs to treat infants with diarrhea, and as additives in infant formulas, yogurt, granola bars and sports drinks, among other uses.

The report details Ventria’s failed attempts to gain FDA approval of its rice-grown drugs dating back to November 2003. Despite more than 20,000 comments objecting, USDA approved the planting last month.

House Agriculture Committee to Consider Language in the Farm Bill that Would Deny State’s Rights to Protect Citizens from Risky Foods

noreply@blogger.com (Food for Thought) — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:20:00 +0000

Last week the U.S. House subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed new language added to the 2007 Farm Bill that would bar states or localities from prohibiting any food or agricultural product that the USDA has deregulated. The new language reads:

SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has—(1) inspected and passed; or(2) determined to be of non-regulated status.

The primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate genetically engineered crops or food (only GE crops are given "non-regulated status"). This would wipe out the restrictions passed by voters in four California counties and two cities, and could limit the powers of the California Rice Certification Act and its ability to prohibit the introduction of GE rice varieties. Local and state laws pertaining to GE crops have also been passed in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. All of these democratically enacted laws are threatened by this language.

The biotech industry and big agribusiness have been trying to push similar bills in dozens of states across the country, and also at the Federal level with last year’s so-called “Food Uniformity” bill. Now they want to sneak it into a committee hearing and hide it in the Farm Bill.

Take Action! Contact the House Agriculture Committee