Follow by Email

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Is Monsanto Killing the Monarch Butterflies, Too?

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com


Monsanto may have just found yet another reason to be hated.
The Monarch Butterfly’s life cycle has always been in sync with the seasonal growth of milkweed, which remains the only plant in the planet’s ecosystem that the butterfly larvae will eat. The emergence of milkweed across the world has made generations of monarchs travel from Mexico to as far north as Canada in an effort to feed off of the spring-time plant.
Now, however, the World Wildlife Fund has announced that the number of monarchs reaching Mexico in the last year has been falling steadily, and has reached the lowest level on record, found in 1.7 acres across 11 sanctuaries, down from the high of 45 acres in 1996.
The reason is simple: As Slate reports, the monarch population began to steadily sink as a result of grasslands rapidly being wiped out in favor of corn and soybean fields—a rate of loss, the report states, comparable to the deforestation of Brazil and Indonesia. Monsanto Company’s well-known, utterly toxic  Roundup Weed Killer is largely to blame for the decline, since it kills everything around it inlcuding milkweed, which is down by 80%.
“We have this smoking gun,” said Karen Oberhauser, a conservation biologist at the University of Minnesota. “This is the only think that we’ve actually been able to correlate with decreasing monarch numbers.”
While there have been a number of other possible scenarios for the butterfly's disappearance (two years of unusual spring weather in the United States, and fluctuating dismally cold and scorching hot weather patterns), the substantial loss of milkweed seems to be the most likely cause.
There are still places in the United States that have an abundance of milkweed (there are only slight decreases in the number of monarchs in New Jersey and northern Michigan) but if the general notion of how big business agriculture is changing the landscape of our world’s ecosystem doesn’t change—drastically—then the Monarchs may just be the be one among many to go.
Rod Bastanmehr is a freelance writer in New York City with a passion for music, 
film and culture. Follow him on Twitter @rodb.

Farmers Demonstrate Against GMOs

Severious Kale-Dery & Charles Andoh / Daily Graphic / Ghana, Jan. 19, 2014
Farmers demonstrate against GMOs
The fight against the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was taken to another level yesterday as Rastafarians and members of some civil society groups hit the streets of Accra to demonstrate against GMOs and the Plant Breeders’ Bill which is before Parliament.
Groups
The groups that took part in the demonstration were the Rastafarian Council, Food Sovereignty Ghana, the Vegetarian Association of Ghana, the Convention People’s Party (CPP), the Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development (CIKOD), the All African People’s Revolutionary Party and the Earth Replenishers Foundation.
Route
Chanting “No GMO”, “Away with GMO” and “Chooboei” and intermittently singing the national anthem, with emphasis on the words: “…and help us to resist oppressors’ rule”, the demonstrators started from the Obra Spot at the Kwame Nkrumah Circle, branched through Adabraka and the TUC, passed in front of the National Theatre before converging on the National Arts Centre to address the press.
Under heavy police guard, the demonstrators stopped from time to time to explain to passers-by the implications of the Plant Breeders’ Bill and GMOs.
Placards
They carried placards with weird photos of GMOs, some of which read: “Say no to Man Satan (Monsanto)”, “Monsanto out of Ghana”, “Farmers’ right come first”, “No to the Plant Breeders’ Bill”, “Ban GMOs”, “GMOs will make Ghanaian farmers poor” and “GMO is poison, beware”.
Implications of the Plant Breeders’ Bill
Addressing the participants at the Arts Centre in Accra, the Chairperson of the Coalition for Farmers’ Rights and Advocacy against GMOs, Ms Samia Yaaba Christine Nkrumah, said there was the need for Ghanaians to rise against the imposition of the Plant Breeders’ Bill, which was currently in Parliament. 
The passage of the bill will allow the introduction of the GM foods into the country.
Ms Nkrumah stated that the imposition of the bill had far-reaching social, economic and political consequences on Ghanaians and the entire African continent.
She explained that the passage of the bill would disable Ghanaians from having total control over their agricultural and food commodities.
“So can’t we even control our own foods? Is this what our forefathers left for us? Do we want a day to come when someone will control what we eat as Africans?” she asked. 
Ms Nkrumah said there was the need for all Ghanaians to come on board to help kick against the bill, since it was not in the interest of the Ghanaian farmer, adding that the call on the ban on GMOs went beyond partisan politics.
Official launch
She also used the platform to officially launch the coalition and called on bodies such as the Ghana Catholic Bishops Conference, traditional rulers, women’s advocacy groups, youth groups, the National Chief Imam, among others, to join hands and help defend the interest of the Ghanaian.
Ms Nkrumah further called on parliamentarians to help educate Ghanaians on the bill before attempting to pass it into law, adding, “It is full of legal jargon that cannot be understood by the ordinary Ghanaian.”
http://graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/16558-farmers-demonstrate-against-gmos.html

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

GM Crop Ban Extended Indefinitely in Tasmania

January 29, 2014 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) Tasmania recently extended its ban on GMO crops indefinitely. This move will enable the Tasmanian island state of the Australian Commonwealth, located 150 miles off the southeast coast of mainland Australia, to maintain export leverage to European nations and others that won't import GMO foods.

The Strait of Bass separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland and the city of Melbourne. It is the 26th largest island in the world, flanked by several small islands that are part of the state of Tasmania.

Obviously, GMO bans in Australia are allowed to be mandated by states. For a while, several states in Australia had bans on GMO crops. But now only Tasmania and South Australia are holding their ground against the biotech industry. South Australia is a fairly large state in the south central portion of Australia. It's coastal area that curves northwesterly away from the Bass Strait.

Bans needed more than labeling, please

In addition to South Australia and Tasmania, there are a few other regions or nations with complete GMO bans or suspensions of planting or even importing GMOs. Japan, Uruguay, Kenya, Italy and Switzerland have invoked complete bans or suspensions of GMO planting and importing.

Several other European and Middle Eastern nations have at least partial bans on both importing GMO products and planting GMO crops.

Kenya's firm stance has raised resistance among several other African nations except for South Africa, which has totally sold out to the biotech industry. Nigerian Catholic institutions and leaders have called for their government to expel the Bill Gates Foundation.

It's been reported that the Seralini study was the final nail in Monsanto's coffin for Kenya. Slowly, the real news or truth of Seralini's paper being removed from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicity (FCT) in which it was first placed is getting out.

It was most likely maneuvered by a former Monsanto scientist, Richard Goodman. He was placed on the editorial staff shortly before Seralini's paper was removed with bogus explanations. The long arms of the evil Monsanto empire reach everywhere. FCT also refuses to publish conflicts of interest in their editorial staff.

Russia has demonstrated resistance to GMO infiltration both with imports and crop planting. The latest is that they are considering a total ban. Key Russian officials are aware of GMO pitfalls and the economic comparisons of conventional, organic and GMO farming. So they haven't been buying the GMO propaganda, so far.

Just like Tasmania, Russia would have an economic food export edge on nearby eastern European and Mid-Eastern nations that are also concerned about GMO contamination. Here's another list of regions with at least partial bans posted by the Organic Consumers' Association (http://www.organicconsumers.org).

Back in the USA and the rest of North America, there are only a handful of isolated resistance pockets. Three farming counties in Northern California have completely banned GMO planting on their soils: Mendocino, Trinity and Marin counties.

GMO papaya continues in Hawaii, although the Hawaiian main island's mayor, Billy Kenoi, put a stop to future GMO crops, and the island of Kauai has recently put restrictions on GMO crops and pesticides (http://www.naturalnews.com).

Canada's canola crops are almost completely GMO. In the USA, nearly all the crops available for genetic engineering, especially corn and soy, are GMO. Some rice, potatoes, sugar beets and tomatoes are GMO, with wheat and apples waiting in the wings.

Meanwhile, parts of Mexico, the origin of corn in North America, have experienced some GMO corn contamination from corn exported cheaply by the USA to Mexico. Right, contamination even without crop fields nearby.

This further demonstrates how coexistence of conventional and organic crops among GMO crops is not possible. Labeling is a consumer choice issue in a land where most don't care what they eat. It won't prevent GMO contamination of all crops and seeds. Only banning will.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.theadvocate.com.au

http://www.examiner.com

http://english.pravda.ru

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043693_genetically_modified_crops_indefinite_ban_Tasmania.html#ixzz2rnaWjq4P

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Hawaii's GMO War Headed to Honolulu and Federal Court

Tuesday, 28 January 2014 14:24By Mike LudwigTruthout | News Analysis
GMO protesters at Hawaii’s capitol (Photo: <a href=" http://www.flickr.com/photos/47961098@N00/2204759144/in/photolist-4mPY5G-4mKVjk-4mPXQo-axoYU9-axoYKj-axoYUY-axoYY3-axmhDT-axoYX9-axoYLU-axmhqt-axmhsM-axoYW5-axmhF8-axmhtr-axoZ1d-axoYRj-axoYS9-axmhuk-axoYTw-axoYH5-axmhrz-axmhoi-axoYJh-axoYZf-ecPdSH-axmhs8-iCXP1N" target="_blank"> kundalini / Flickr</a>)GMO protesters at Hawaii's capitol (Photo: kundalini / Flickr)

The question facing Hawaiians in their grassroots opposition to GMO development: Do county governments - and the local communities they represent - have the power to regulate global chemical companies and the pesticide-laden process of developing genetically engineered seeds?

The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Hawaii is reaching a fever pitch. The battleground has shifted from packed local meetings to a federal court and the Legislature as powerful agrichemical interests push back against a grassroots movement that has succeeded in passing laws through two county councils. The question facing the island state that has become a cradle of GMO development: Do county governments - and the local communities they represent - have the power to regulate global chemical companies and the pesticide-laden process of developing genetically engineered seeds?

After months of massive marches and packed local meetings, two county governments in Hawaii took on Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and the other agrichemical firms that take advantage of Hawaii's three growing seasons to develop GMO seed varieties sold across the world. In November, the county of Kauai passed a law regulating pesticide use at GMO test plots near residential communities. (Truthout reported from Kauai in November, check out our in-depth coveragehere and here.) In December, the island of Hawaii banned biotech companies from operating on the island and asked farmers not to plant any newly developed GMO seeds besides papaya. 

On January 23, state lawmakers introduced legislation that would block county governments from restricting legal agricultural practices, a move that critics say is a clear effort to pre-empt the counties of Hawaii and Kauai and render their new GMO rules null and void. Anti-GMO activists have dubbed the bill the "Hawaii Monsanto Protection Act." 

During the 2012 election cycle, Monsanto and two lobbyists that represent the company were among the top 15 donors to Sen. Clarence Nishihara, the bill's main sponsor in the state Senate, according to state records. During the same election year, Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz, another sponsor in the Senate, received a combined $3,650 of donations from Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow Chemical and an additional $5,450 from Monsanto lobbyists and industry representatives. 

In January 2014, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta and a subsidiary of Dow Chemical filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Kauai's new law, originally called Bill 2491 and now known as Ordinance 960. The law aims at protecting environmental and public health by requiring the three companies, along with the biotech firm BASF, to publically disclose information about pesticide sprays and establishing buffer zones near schools and hospitals. 

Corporate Bullying 
The lawsuit comes as no surprise. The three companies, which lease more than 11,000 acres on Kauai, had threatened to take legal action during the fiery public debate over Bill 2491 last year. The firms argue that they have been unfairly singled out and are sufficiently regulated by state and federal laws. Kauai County, they told the court, has overstepped its jurisdiction in attempting to infringe on their business. 

An agrichemical facility operated by Dupont Pioneer near an irrigation ditch running out to the ocean on the island of Kauai. (Photo: Mike Ludwig)An agrichemical facility operated by Dupont Pioneer near an irrigation ditch running out to the ocean on the island of Kauai. (Photo: Mike Ludwig)"For three of the largest of the agrichemical companies in the world to sue a place like Kauai County, a small community, for the right to spray poisons next to schools is indicative of the corporate mindset that we're dealing with," said Gary Hooser, a member of the Kauai County Council and the main architect of Bill 2491. 
Hooser said his community is "firm in its resolve." Attorneys with environmental and food safety groups have vowed to defend the Kauai law pro-bono. 
The GMO laws passed on Hawaii and Kauai are the results of a grassroots push on county governments to limit biotech operations. Some supporters of the laws are hardcore anti-GMO activists who surely would kick Monsanto and friends out of the state if given the chance, but others, like those living in the shadow of GMO test plots on Kauai's west side, where thousands of pounds of restricted-use pesticides are sprayed each year, say they simply want to protect public health. 

“As a west-side resident who is surrounded by the test fields of these companies, it is my basic human right to know what they are exposing me and my family to on a regular basis," said local activist Malia Chun after the companies filed suit against Kauai County. "Their actions prove that they do not value the health and well-being of our community and are only interested in their corporate profit.”

In their complaint against Kauai County, the agrichemical companies argue that disclosing their pesticide regimens would force them to reveal "trade secrets" and put them at risk of "commercial espionage." Chun and other residents, however, want to know if the chemicals are harming the environment and contributing to an uptick in birth defects in an area where dust from the GMO fields regularly falls on neighborhoods and irrigation ditches run directly into a local river and the ocean. 

A residential neighborhood on the island of Kauai's west end is just across the river from GMO testing fields where restricted use pesticides are sprayed on a regular basis. (Photo: Mike Ludwig)A residential neighborhood on the island of Kauai's west end is just across the river from GMO testing fields where restricted use pesticides are sprayed on a regular basis. (Photo: Mike Ludwig)Some of the restricted-use pesticides, such as atrazine, sprayed near Chun's neighborhood of mostly native Hawaiians, have been linked to health problems and are banned in European countries. Federal law in the United States simply requires them to be applied by licensed professionals. In the past, local schoolteachers said that overspraying by Syngenta caused a general panic at an elementary school and made several children sick. The company has denied any wrongdoing. 

Hawaii's Monsanto Protection Act
A bill introduced in both chambers of the Legislature in late January 2014 signaled that Honolulu is now the epicenter of the state's GMO debate. The bill amends the Hawaii Right to Farm act to prevent county governments from enacting laws and ordinances that prevent farmers and ranchers from employing "agricultural technology" and farming practices that are allowed under state or federal law. 

Democratic Rep. Richard Onishi, vice chairman of the Hawaii House Committee on Agriculture, said in a statement that the bill seeks to strike a balance between "rural and urban needs" and prevent nuisance lawsuits against law-abiding farmers. When asked by a local reporter if the bill is an attempt to pre-empt the GMO measures passed on Hawaii and Kauai, Onishi said, "It's not about preempting the counties. It's not about GMOs. It’s about supporting farmers." 

Hooser, a former state lawmaker, is unconvinced. He sponsored the Kauai pesticide law and defended it for months against an aggressive campaign waged by the agrichemical companies. 

"Clearly the intent of these bills is to take away the counties' authority in support of the agrochemical companies agenda of minimizing regulation of their industry," Hooser told Truthout. "To say otherwise is disingenuous." 

Hawaii state Sen. Russell Ruderman, a Democrat, called the bill a "cynical attempt" to undo the counties' new GMO laws. He said legislation had to be passed at the county level because the powerful agrichemical companies already have bought out state and federal lawmakers. 

"The state Legislature has consistently blocked any effort to regulate pesticides and GMOs," Ruderman told Truthout. 

Nishihara, a Democrat and chairman of the senate's agricultural committee, introduced the Right to Farm bill in his chamber. Nishihara did not respond to a Truthout request to comment on the bill, but a review of Nishihara's campaign finance records show that Monsanto was one of the top 15 donors to the senator's 2012 election campaign, with $1,000 of donations. George Morris and John Radcliffe, who lobby for Monsanto and other corporations, gave Nishihara $1,000 and $1,500, respectively. Alicia Maluafiti, director of the pro-industry Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, donated $1,000 during the 2012 election cycle. Syngenta gave Nishihara $500 that year. 

In 2008, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has spent big opposing state GMO labeling initiatives, gave Nishihara $4,000. Monsanto donated $750 to the senator's war chest that year, and Morris and Radcliffe have made donations in the past.

Dela Cruz received $1,500 from Monsanto during the 2012 cycle and an additional $5,000 from Monsanto lobbyists, according to state records. Dow, Dupont and Syngenta also gave donations ranging from $500 to $1,000. 

Last year, Dela Cruz introduced legislation that Hooser routinely has touted as evidence that the biotech industry already was lobbying state lawmakers to block counties from regulating the agrichemical industry. Hawaii law states that county governments have the power to enact laws "deemed necessary to protect health, life, and property," but Dela Cruz's bill, which was meant to clear up conflicts between federal, state and local regulations, would have struck the words health and life from that language. 

"To take away the right of the county to protect health and life really shows what they are willing to do to protect their interests," Hooser said about Dela Cruz's legislation, which he sees as a precursor to the Right to Farm bill. 

Cruz's "health and life" bill did enjoy some supporting testimony from a Monsanto community outreach manager but was deferred to committee after many others testified against it. Dela Cruz did not respond to a request for comment from Truthout. 

While the "Hawaii Monsanto Protection Act" is making headlines, it's clear that some Hawaii lawmakers are paying attention to the groundswell of anti-GMO activism in their state. Several bills to require the labeling of groceries containing GMO ingredients are on the docket, including one that would amend the state constitution to do so. Other bills call on the state agriculture department to study the impacts of GMO agriculture and issue harsher penalties for pesticide violations. 

One proposal would ban open-air testing of GMO seeds and plants unless the agrichemical companies are granted an exception by proving that their experiments are done in controlled environments. Another bill would place a five-year moratorium on the use of Roundup, the popular herbicide originally patented by Monsanto that many GMO crops are engineered to tolerate. It’s unlikely these bills will make it out of committee. But if they are successful, they could force the agrichemical companies to leave Hawaii. For now, their presence will continue to be a statewide controversy and a flashpoint in the global debate over the future of food.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Argentina suspends construction of Monsanto's unconstitutional GMO seed plant


January 16, 2014 by: PF Louis

(NaturalNews) It's not a total ban, but it's at least a victorious battle against the evil empire of Monsanto and the sociopathic biotech industry. After many months of grassroots demonstrating, blocking bulldozers and construction of a Monsanto seed factory in Argentina, a three-person court ruled two to one that construction of a Monsanto GMO seed plant must be halted until an environmental impact study is completed.

Of course, Monsanto is taking this decision to a higher court with claims that they did their own environmental study and the paperwork for construction on that site was approved by Argentine construction bureaucracies. They played the typical corporate rights card, which tends to appeal to individual rights philosophies even among libertarians, unfortunately.

The pesticide human health issue

The motivating force behind expanding anti-Monsanto demonstrations, including life-threatening demonstrations on the seed plant construction site, was the growing health problems near soy fields sprayed with Roundup. Farmers who sign up for Roundup Ready seeds are forced into using Roundup as part of Monsanto's contract.

Monsanto's end product is Roundup. It is primarily a chemical company. The birth deformities and spontaneous abortions that many farmers in the USA have reported in their GMO soy- and corn-fed livestock have plagued Argentine humans living near GMO soy fields.

The fields were often sprayed from the air. And mysterious illnesses were occurring among adults and children near those fields during the 12 years that Argentina had bought into GMO soy production to boost its economy.

Even an Associated Press investigation pointed to a clear link between the use of pesticides sold by Monsanto and worsening health problems in Argentina, as those pesticides both were airborne and polluted water sources.

While Monsanto claims that glyphosate is safe, and many international environmental, health and agricultural agencies concur, there is a sneaky little detail that's omitted from their studies.

That detail is simply that glyphosate is not the only ingredient in their "proprietary" formula that is considered a trade secret, allowing Monsanto to play the corporate rights card stopping most from looking behind the curtain. Glyphosate is studied alone, not as part of formulas that use glyphosate with other ingredients.

Seralini's French research team discovered that Roundup's extreme toxicity comes from combining glyphosate with chemical adjuvants to ensure rapid plant absorption of glyphosate.

Glyphosate is considered the "active ingredient," so that's what is tested. The adjuvants are considered "inert," pretty much like vaccines and their toxic adjuvants, and are thus ignored, especially when protected by "trade secret" rights.

By the way, don't let the mainstream attacks on Seralini's work fool you. He and his team used the same type and number of rats that Monsanto used for only 90 days.

The difference was that Seralini's study was performed for a full two years to examine long-term toxicity effects of Roundup's glyphosate formula. Monsanto gained EU approval for using GMO corn as part of animal feeds with their 90-day study.

The rats' premature deaths and cancerous tumors began appearing at the nine-month point of Seralini's study. Seralini actually managed with high-tech scientific analysis to isolate those adjuvants protected by Monsanto's proprietary trade secret "rights"(http://gmoseralini.org).

Seralini has been attacked for his long-term toxicity (not carcinogenesis) study, while Monsanto got an EU pass to use Roundup Ready GMO corn in livestock feed after submitting their own 90-day study. But several hundred international scientists and thousands of others have defended him and his study (http://www.naturalnews.com).

It's no wonder that Seralini's study papers were officially removed from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, especially soon after former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman was inserted into their editorial staff (http://www.fooddemocracynow.org).

Seralini did more than demonstrate Monsanto's GMO Roundup Ready pesticide's long-term toxicity even when used within EPA's safe use guidelines. He broke the code of their secret formula. Here's that analysis (http://gmoseralini.org).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043546_Monsanto_GMO_seed_plant_Argentina.html#ixzz2qahMPr1e

Sunday, January 12, 2014

GMO labeling to be outlawed? Grocery Manufacturers Association unveils deviously evil plan to silence us all

January 10, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is scheming to criminalize state-by-state GMO labeling laws in a deviously evil effort to keep consumers ignorant of what they're eating. Remember, the GMA is the same organization that got caught running an illegal money laundering scheme in Washington state, secretly funneling money from big food manufacturers into a campaign to defeat GMO labeling initiative I-522.

Now the GMA is pushing legislation at the federal level to not only outlaw GMO labeling laws at the state level, but also to get the FDA to declare GMOs as "natural" so that foods made with GMOs can claim "all natural" on their labels. A petition filed with the FDA by the GMA states, "GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks the FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled 'natural.'" (SOURCE)

"Monsanto and giant food companies are scheming behind the scenes to introduce a bill in Congress that would kill mandatory state GMO labeling efforts and replace it with a gutted version of a bill to preempt states' rights and give the illusion of serious regulation," reports Food Democracy Now, which also calls the plan "devious" in nature.


How evil can they get?

With these anti-transparency, anti-consumer, anti-American actions, the GMA now firmly puts itself in the same evil camp as Monsanto itself. Because the right to know what we are eating is a fundamental human right, the GMA's actions clearly define it as an anti-human rights group. In the history of human rights violations, we've seen a long list of evil efforts to silence certain groups of people and keep them ignorant: Women were denied the right to vote, slaves were denied the right to "personhood," and in the Holocaust, Jews were denied the right to life itself. Now the GMA joins that haunting history of human rights violators by insidious working to deny all people the right to know what they are eating.

The GMA solely represents the profit interests of dishonest, deceptive food manufacturers who sell toxic poisons, not the interests of food consumers, and it has a long established history of using deceptive tactics to make sure its members can continue to hide their toxic poisons in their food products.

The GMA is, in essence, a "pro-poison" industry group that wants consumers to unknowingly eat more poisons in their food. The GMA should not merely be ashamed of itself; it should be publicly exposed as an evil food industry group whose actions, if successful, may result in hundreds of millions of Americans being harmed by unknowingly eating unlabeled poisons in their food.

Your help is needed to stop this group from achieving its truly evil aims in Washington. Here's what you can do to help:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043469_GMA_GMO_labeling_evil_plan.html#ixzz2qCRYmDYH

GMO labeling to be outlawed? Grocery Manufacturers Association unveils deviously evil plan to silence us all

Friday, January 10, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is scheming to criminalize state-by-state GMO labeling laws in a deviously evil effort to keep consumers ignorant of what they're eating. Remember, the GMA is the same organization that got caught running an illegal money laundering scheme in Washington state, secretly funneling money from big food manufacturers into a campaign to defeat GMO labeling initiative I-522.

Now the GMA is pushing legislation at the federal level to not only outlaw GMO labeling laws at the state level, but also to get the FDA to declare GMOs as "natural" so that foods made with GMOs can claim "all natural" on their labels. A petition filed with the FDA by the GMA states, "GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks the FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled 'natural.'" (SOURCE)

"Monsanto and giant food companies are scheming behind the scenes to introduce a bill in Congress that would kill mandatory state GMO labeling efforts and replace it with a gutted version of a bill to preempt states' rights and give the illusion of serious regulation," reports Food Democracy Now, which also calls the plan "devious" in nature.

How evil can they get?
With these anti-transparency, anti-consumer, anti-American actions, the GMA now firmly puts itself in the same evil camp as Monsanto itself. Because the right to know what we are eating is a fundamental human right, the GMA's actions clearly define it as an anti-human rights group. In the history of human rights violations, we've seen a long list of evil efforts to silence certain groups of people and keep them ignorant: Women were denied the right to vote, slaves were denied the right to "personhood," and in the Holocaust, Jews were denied the right to life itself. Now the GMA joins that haunting history of human rights violators by insidious working to deny all people the right to know what they are eating.

The GMA solely represents the profit interests of dishonest, deceptive food manufacturers who sell toxic poisons, not the interests of food consumers, and it has a long established history of using deceptive tactics to make sure its members can continue to hide their toxic poisons in their food products.

The GMA is, in essence, a "pro-poison" industry group that wants consumers to unknowingly eat more poisons in their food. The GMA should not merely be ashamed of itself; it should be publicly exposed as an evil food industry group whose actions, if successful, may result in hundreds of millions of Americans being harmed by unknowingly eating unlabeled poisons in their food.

Your help is needed to stop this group from achieving its truly evil aims in Washington. Here's what you can do to help:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043469_GMA_GMO_labeling_evil_plan.html#ixzz2qCRFtVC9