PoliticalAction.com Blog

The Trans-Pacific Partnership could help save millions of children from dying every year.

President Obama’s trade agenda is dedicated to expanding economic opportunity for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. That’s why we are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 21st century trade agreement that will boost U.S. economic growth, support American jobs, and grow Made-in-America exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing countries in the world.

As the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s economic policy in the Asia Pacific, the Trans-Pacific Partnership reflects the United States’ economic priorities and values. The TPP not only seeks to provide new and meaningful market access for American goods and services exports, but also set high-standard rules for trade, and address vital 21st-century issues within the global economy.

Here are a few of the ways the Trans-Pacific Partnership will unlock opportunity for you

The TPP will support Made-in-America exports

The TPP will make it easier to sell Made-in-America goods and services exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing markets in the world, and support homegrown jobs and economic growth.

The TPP will enforce fundamental labor rights

The TPP will level the playing field for American workers and businesses by building strong and enforceable labor standards.

The TPP will promote strong environmental protection

Environmental protection is a core American value. Through the TPP, the United States is negotiating for robust environment standards and commitments from member countries, and addressing some of the region’s most pressing environmental challenges.

The TPP will help American small businesses benefit from trade

American small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, and have accounted for nearly two thirds of new private sector jobs in recent decades. The TPP will improve transparency and regulations to help U.S. companies engage in and benefit from increased trade in the Asia Pacific.

What the Farm Aid Organization has to say about GMO food:

With a new mission to squash “burdensome” regulation and play nice with U.S. businesses, the Obama Administration has been in a frenzy green-lighting genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Just weeks into the new year, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the full deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa—a genetically engineered crop variety designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The move gave the OK for commercial planting to take place this spring without restrictions. A week later, USDA announced the deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, followed by the deregulation of Syngenta’s Enogen corn, a variety genetically engineered for biofuel production. Meanwhile, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering the commercial release of genetically modified salmon.

With a new onslaught of GE products hitting the market it’s no wonder the public has some questions, as you do, Jerry. So, what’s the big deal about genetic engineering?

The short and not-so-sweet of it is this: GE crops present real risks, fewer choices for both farmers and eaters and offer unclear benefits except to the companies that develop and market them, and thus pocket major profits.

Risky Business for Farmers
One of the biggest problems GE crops have presented in the real world is the contamination of non-GE crops. The newest wave of deregulated GE crops presents a very real risk that such contamination will happen again.

Take alfalfa, which is pollinated by bees. Bees can generally cover a five-mile range as they buzz from plant to plant, collecting and spreading pollen. Since bees don’t tend to observe property lines or fences, GE alfalfa pollen could, for example, be spread to and pollinate a non-GE alfalfa plant, in turn contaminating a neighboring field with GE genes.

This cross-fertilization would be especially disastrous for organic farmers. If organic fields are contaminated, an organic farmer’s certification is at risk, since the use of GE crops is prohibited under the organic label. Losing organic certification would mean his or her goods can no longer be sold for the premium price that helps cover the higher costs of growing organically. Organic livestock farmers would face similar consequences if their cattle consumed contaminated alfalfa, and the organic industry as a whole could suffer from severe supply problems if organic alfalfa can’t be maintained with integrity. Canada’s organic canola industry suffered this fate, and is virtually extinct due to contamination from GE canola.[1]

GE contamination hurts conventional farmers too. A prime example occurred in 2000, when genes from Aventis’ StarLink GE corn showed up unexpectedly in the nation’s food supply and U.S. export markets. While StarLink corn only represented 1% of planted corn acreage, it ultimately contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year.[2] Traces of StarLink corn also showed up in taco shells, even though the variety wasn’t approved for human consumption. The fiasco led to a massive recall of over 300 food products. Export markets started rejecting American corn and corn prices plummeted.[3] Corn farmers ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against Aventis, who forked over $112 million in settlement. Three years later, StarLink genetics were still detected in the U.S. corn supply, well after the crop was pulled from the market.[4] Millers and food manufacturers are concerned the same thing will happen with Syngenta’s Enogen corn intended for biofuel production, which could contaminate corn for human consumption and seriously threaten foods processed with corn–based ingredients.

USDA recognized such risks when it conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. This past December, Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa — a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.”[5] Despite such concern, USDA approved the planting of GE alfalfa for this spring without any indication of how it will prevent the type of costly contamination that threatens to occur.

Into the Wild: “Superweeds” and other environmental hazards
In addition to the very real risks of GE-contamination, there are numerous accounts of superweeds developing from the overuse of Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready crops. Fifteen years after Roundup Ready corn and soy first debuted, there are now at least 10 species of Roundup-resistant weeds identified in more than 22 states, as well as superweeds sprouting up in Australia, China and Brazil.[6]

Superweeds undermine the environmental benefits that GE crops are claimed to offer by reducing soil tillage, pesticide applications and soil and water contamination.[7] Affected farmers must now resort to more toxic chemicals, increased labor or more intense tillage of their fields to address superweeds on their farms. The newly approved Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets will only exacerbate that problem. And as companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dow Chemical work on their own pesticide-resistant crops (including one designed to resist 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange!),[8] even nastier superweeds may be on the horizon, with even nastier pesticides being used to control them in the ever-escalating arms race against weeds and pests.

GE crops pose additional environment risks, such as threats to biodiversity or unintentional harm to other insects and animals in the ecosystem, many of which are beneficial to crop production. But remember, there’s absolutely no recall on GE genetics. Once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. What’s more, once a crop is fully deregulated, USDA currently conducts no monitoring of any kind to see if a GE crop has harmed the environment.[9] To date, we are completely unequipped to deal with all of these consequences. (For more on how GE crops are regulated, see this Ask Farm Aid column from 2009).

Do I eat GE foods?
What does all this mean for eaters? Do we eat GE foods? The quick answer is: almost certainly.

Remember that the vast majority of our corn and soy come from GE seed, and that these crops are generally used as feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, or otherwise used in the many processed foods found in grocery store aisles. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S. and is most commonly used to feed dairy cows and beef cattle.

So, if you drink milk, eat beef, enjoy the occasional slice of bacon with your breakfast, order chicken in your Caesar salad or ever indulge in processed foods, cereals and desserts with ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, GE crops are part of your food chain. Unfortunately, you can’t be sure when you eat them or in what form, because there is no requirement to label foods with GE ingredients. As discussed above, the release of GE alfalfa also puts several organic foods at risk for contamination—further eroding our choice as consumers to avoid GE foods if we wish.

Little research has been conducted to examine whether GE foods present risks to human health—such as allergens or toxins—but it seems prudent that this be investigated rigorously before GE foods hit the market. Many countries, including countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia and Brazil, have banned the cultivation of GE crops or require labeling of GE foods as precautions.

Feeding the World? The Silver Bullet That Misses the Target
Defenders of GE crops argue they are desperately needed to feed the world’s ever-growing population and address world hunger. Some have accused critics of GE technology as being shortsighted Luddites at best, and irresponsible at worst.

But to date, GE crops have done little to address hunger worldwide—yield results have been mixed globally, and are nominal for America’s family farmers. A recent study of historical yield data in the U.S. found that herbicide-resistant genetics in GE corn and soy didn’t increase yield any more than conventional methods.[10] Perhaps more importantly, the GE varieties hitting the market aren’t focused on yield in the first place. Developing a crop for herbicide resistance or biofuel production is quite different than selecting for plant traits that encourage plant growth, drought resistance or other traits that would actually help address food security worldwide. Moreover, companies haven’t invested their dollars in the staple crops of food insecure populations worldwide, such as millet, quinoa or cassava. We will need much more than Roundup Ready alfalfa to solve world hunger.

The Seedier Side of GE: Who Benefits
So if farmers, eaters, the environment and the world’s undernourished won’t appreciably benefit from the government’s recent GE green-lighting parade, who will?

Most GE crops hitting the market are developed by multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Dow Chemical to increase their sales and push their related pesticides. For example, Roundup Ready crops are all engineered to withstand Monsanto’s toxic herbicide Roundup. With Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets on the market, Monsanto can expect increased profits from its new seeds, as well as increased sales of Roundup herbicide to douse all those new seeds.

GE crops are also patented, which grants several privileges to corporate seed giants. For example, companies have repeatedly restricted independent research on the risks and benefits of GE products, which is perfectly legal under patent law, but severely limits objective examination of the efficacy and safety of GE crops.[11] If that weren’t bad enough, patents have given companies the power to pursue lawsuits against farmers for illegally “possessing” patented GE plants without a license. Monsanto has famously sued thousands of individual farmers for patent infringement when their fields were contaminated with GE genes.[12]

With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]

In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.

The bottom line?
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.

Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers.

We sent in a petition regarding food safety and Senate Bill 510 – “The Food Modernization and Safety Act”. The response was typical, Washington, bureaucratic BS, we are doing it to protect you nonsense.
UGGGGGHHHHHHH!

Dear Sir,

While we will respond to the specific issues you raise as soon as we can, I wanted to let you know that your message has been received and that I appreciate your taking the time to write.

The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to protect the nation’s health and provide essential human services, and, as part of that mission, we are at the forefront of the federal government’s efforts to address a wide range of critical issues and challenges. I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on our work.

First, on March 23, after more than a year of extensive debate, the President signed into law health reform legislation that brings down health care costs for American families and small businesses, expands coverage to millions of Americans and ends the worst practices of insurance companies. As a result of the new law, Americans will begin to see significant benefits take effect this year, with other important reforms following shortly after. In the weeks, months, and years ahead, our department will be responsible for implementing many of these reforms. You can be assured that we are firmly committed to explaining these changes to the American people clearly, and to enacting them carefully and effectively. For information about the new law, I would encourage you to visit www.healthcare.gov.

Meanwhile, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars available as part of a comprehensive prevention and wellness initiative, Communities Putting Prevention to Work. This new initiative supports local efforts to reduce obesity, increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and decrease smoking – the four most important things we can to do to fight chronic diseases and improve public health. And it’s right in line with the First Lady’s Let’s Move campaign, which calls on Americans to work together to solve childhood obesity in a generation. You can learn more about these and other Recovery Act initiatives at www.hhs.gov/recovery.

In addition, it is a core responsibility of HHS, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to ensure the food we eat is safe. Toward that end, I am firmly committed to working with my colleagues at the Department of Agriculture to achieve the President’s goal of upgrading and strengthening our food safety system; restoring trust in the FDA as the leading science-based regulatory agency in the world; and fulfilling our obligation to the American people to ensure that the food they purchase and serve to their families is safe to eat. For more information, please visit www.foodsafety.gov.

Finally, HHS plays a vital role in getting our children ready to learn and thrive in school, helping low-income working families struggling to make ends meet in this difficult economy, and meeting the basic needs of vulnerable populations, such as abused and neglected children, refugees, and individuals with disabilities. As the Administration works to turn around our economy, we recognize that the economic downturn has had its greatest impact on the most vulnerable among us – low-income families with children. Through child care, child support, energy assistance, and other efforts, the Department helps low-income parents and their communities weather this economic storm. We will continue to work hard to improve these programs through evidence-based approaches that make a difference for these families and children.

Again, thank you for writing.

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Power-hungry statists are never satisfied.

Now they’re attempting to use a massive egg recall to shove S. 510, the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act,” down our throats.

S. 510, through a patchwork of rules and regulations on the food “industry,” will throw America’s heartland under the government-subsidized corporatist bus as it crushes local and community producers of healthy food.

Contact your senators today to tell them to oppose S.510!

Like Cap and Tax, which will guarantee higher energy bills during these rough economic times, S. 510 will further drive up the costs of living by adding more layers of bureaucracy on food production – ensuring you pay more to meet an essential need.

Congress certainly won’t be the one tightening its belt. Section 401 of S. 510 authorizes nearly $1 billion to grow the FDA’s reach and calls for almost 4,000 new bureaucrats to be hired in fiscal year 2010 alone.

This onerous new law will apply harshly to reputable food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with healthy choices.

Meanwhile, Big Agriculture will continue to use its well-entrenched connections to make sure it escapes serious scrutiny.

The statists have worked to replace “credible evidence” with “reasonable probability” in the U.S. Code, giving the FDA power to invade, quarantine, or shut down private property in search of any foodborne illness.

They also changed “presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals” to “is adulterated or misbranded.” What exactly constitutes adulterated? That glass of raw milk? An FDA bureaucrat will decide.

It gets worse.

The bill also grants blanket authority for federal agencies to impose international guidelines and standards on domestic food producers – giving agencies authority to harmonize all American food production and processes in line with the globalist Codex.

It should be noted that Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Richard Burr (R-NC) coordinated to reach a “bipartisan” agreement to forge ahead with the otherwise stalled bill.

If you are a constituent of any of these senators, they especially need to hear from you.

Big Brother and Big Agriculture are combating the truly modern way to improve food safety by targeting the rapidly growing number of food producers who, through the free market, provide diversity and give us choices.

The establishment is pushing for more consolidation and is looking to control your food choices to make it happen. Don’t stomach another round of tyranny. Contact your senators today.

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. Gluttonous statists are drooling to pass not only this bill, but other assaults like DISCLOSE and Cap and Tax. If you are able, please chip in $10 today so Campaign for Liberty can stay on the offensive against any infringements on our freedoms. Use the “Share” button below to forward this message to your friends and family.

It all started in the 1920’s with Yellow Journalism.

William Randolph Hearst, who arrived on the scene in 1887, was already in control of the headlines on a day-to-day basis because of his efficient business practice within the industry. He was able to produce his Newspapers at next to nothing by manufacturing the tree pulp used and controlling the channel of production down to his papers, the San Francisco Examiner, and eventually the New York Journal (Which became a leading Newspaper).

He teamed up with Henry Dupont to manufacture the ink used in the New York Journal and the partnership began to grow.

ALONG CAME HEMP

Hemp grows 4 times faster than the timber used for tree pulp by Hearst.

Hemp grows annually and can be grown more times

Hemp produces a better quality paper.

Hemp can be grown in any region of the United States.

Since Hemp grew so fast and it grew in every region, Hearst could not stop the middle class farmer from decentralizing the industry. Hearst knew that he could not provide the intellectual property to keep Hemp from destroying his industry and replacing it with middle class producers

In other words he was afraid of the free market. He was afraid of us… he had to stop it!

Dupont and Hearst knew then that not many Americans understood the difference between Hemp and Cannabis. So they used it against the Americans by claiming Cannabis will make you rape and kill your sister if smoked, illustrating the dangers of inhaling by using grim reapers in their newspapers with joints. And people believed it!

Time and Time again they would use this propaganda through the New York Journal, claiming that Mexicans bringing Marijuana across the border would sleep with White Wives and take White Jobs. They were also saying this about Black Americans who took up smoking and started the Jazz movement.

Dupont’s banker was Andrew Mellon, Mellon bank of Pittsburgh (5th largest bank at the time). Andrew Mellon had a Nephew, Harry Anslinger. Andrew Mellon financially backed Anslinger and threw all of his weight into convincing the U.S. treasury that Marijuana is dangerous and it should be heavily regulated by way of taxation and prohibition.

The treasury could use a program that would generate that much income for the government so in June of 1930 the treasury gave birth to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Ansligner hated Mexicans, Blacks, and Cannabis. He was on a mission to eliminate all of them. Immediately Ansliger waged war on Cannabis regurgitating claims made by Hearst in his Newspapers. (Success stories followed in the New York Journal).

Then, in 1937 Anslinger approached congress with intent to fully regulate all Cannabis. The entire meeting was comprised of Ansliger making emotional outbursts and attempting to offer evidence, all of which was newspaper clippings out of Hearst’s Newspapers.

With the exception of one congressman, all agreed and the act passed, Marijuana became criminal giving birth to the Drug War.

Not to mention Hearst, Dupont, and Mellon were all filthy rich now and had their hands in official pockets.

But the story doesn’t stop here. Andrew Mellon had to study the enemy, He saw what happened with Alcohol Prohibition and he knew it wouldn’t be long before the public caught on.

Mr. Mellon then financed Pharmaceutical companies through government grants and private equity to try to create a synthetic substitute for the over 60 different medicinal properties Cannabis contains. (They have yet to accomplish this goal)

If you look into the history you will find that fossil fuels would have never existed if it wasn’t for this intervention in the market place.

CANNABIS CAN SUPPLY THE ENTIRE NATION WITH ENERGY ON ONLY 1% OF U.S. LAND. ALL CARBON CLEAN.

(AND REMEMBER IT GROWS EVERYWHERE)

This is where the Federal Reserve comes in. The Federal Reserve System does not want to see the decentralization of resources towards localism because if that were to happen the Fed would lose a stronghold on the liquidity pools it artificially creates. It would also mean they couldn’t use the Carbon Tax to consolidate wealth across the world.

With Cannabis being legal and having over 25,000 uses there would be no way to compete against local and more sustainable banks.

So, the Federal Reserve uses banks like the Mellon to fund the DEA and keep money flowing and keep marijuana illegal. The Fed knows that with Cannabis being legal our GDP would boom but not in favor of large monopolies like the FED, but quite the contrary.

This is why I always say… the day we legalize it is the day we end the FED!

Despite years of warnings by public interest organizations such as the Organic Consumers Association and the Humane Society of the U.S., earlier this year, drugged-out pigs and chickens on intensive confinement factory farms have incubated a highly infectious H1N1 virus that set off a global pandemic.

This so-far only moderately virulent but rapidly spreading strain of influenza, which contains genetic material from pigs, birds and humans has already infected 162,000 people and killed hundreds of people across the world, including the United States. The World Health Organization has warned that although the current H1N1 Swine Flu is far less deadly than the Bird Flu, it could mutate into a much more dangerous strain. As the flu season approaches in the Northern Hemisphere, profit-obsessed drug-makers are racing to supply governments with vaccines and medicines. There are numerous concerns about the safety of these messures, including:

A leaked memo revealed that the swine flu vaccine has been linked to paralysis.

The fast-tracked vaccine contains novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene which was in all probability responsible for Gulf War syndrome.

If the greed of drug companies prevails over safety concerns, vaccines will be pushed on a frightened, ignorant and passive public through the school system, work places and free vaccination programs. Schoolchildren could be first in line for the swine flu vaccine this fall — and schools are being put on notice that they might be turned into shot clinics.

It is important to know that you can avoid quasi-forced vaccinations of yourself and your children. Plus, there are homeopathic alternatives for treating and building a natural immunity to the swine flu.

Please click here to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Congress and the President that you reject forced vaccinations and vaccines rushed to market without proper safety testing. Tell them you want them to address the root cause of swine & bird flu: factory farms. Then, contact your local officials with the same message. Many decisions about who will be vaccinated or recieve medical treatment and how will be made at the local level.

Yet another bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration new powers over our food supply has been introduced and passed in the House of Representatives. This new bill, known as the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2749), was passed on July 30 by a vote of 283-142.

H.R. 2749 is just one of several bills in Congress that would expand the powers of the FDA. What are the differences between one bill and another? Anyone’s guess is as good as another! This bill, like many others, was literally rushed through the voting process leaving House members little-to-no time to read, debate, or offer any significant amendments on the legislation.

A recent blog post on JBS.org stated, “One version [of H.R. 2749] was introduced at 12:15 a.m., one at 9:36 a.m., and 10:50 a.m. on Wednesday morning. By Thursday the bill was again on the table, this time with the option that representatives could offer amendments. One was offered. No action was taken on it, which leaves the question, again, how many representatives voting on this stealth bill actually read it.”

Much like the previously reported H.R. 875, or other legislation that would further federalize our food supply, H.R. 2749 would threaten the livelihood of small farms and other food producers by placing costly and burdensome restrictions on the companies and potentially forcing them out of business.

Opponents of the bill argue that small farmers and local vendors would be held to the same standards of multinational companies. This would place heavy restrictions on anyone hoping to sell their products to consumers who frequent farmer’s markets, fruit stands or other venues of that nature.

Use The John Birch Society’s legislation alert system to write your Senators and urge them to oppose H.R. 2749 and any other legislation that would centralize our food system.

Thank you,
Your friends at The John Birch Society

Fund Announces New Affiliate Membership Program In Celebration of National Farmer’s Market Week

Offering Legal Services to Rapidly Growing and Increasingly Regulated Direct-to-Consumer Groups

Falls Church, Virginia (August 7, 2009) – Even as the USDA commends Farmer’s Markets in the week-long National Farmer’s Market Week, August 2 – 9, 2009, State and local health and agriculture departments are making participation difficult and expensive by cracking down on participating farmers.

Some Farmer’s Markets have become a victim of their own success, as regulators swarm over these events and nit-pick the farmers for fees, licenses and permits.

“We are seeing farmers quit the markets because they are besieged with burdensome regulations and overlapping licensing requirements that make doing business at the farmer’s market too costly,” said Fund President Pete Kennedy, Esq. The Fund seeks to support Farmer’s Markets and other direct-to-consumer food outlets with a new Affiliate Membership program that provides affordable, accessible legal guidance for these organizations.

“When Farmer’s Markets are open early in the morning or on the weekend, their Market Manager can call our Emergency Hotline to talk directly with legal counsel about a market problem” says Kennedy.

“When I joined the Fund I never thought I would ever need to call to the Emergency Hotline. In less than thirty seconds there was Pete Kennedy calling me back”, says Pam Lunn, owner of the Dancing Goat Dairy in Tampa, Florida. Pam had been ordered to stop selling milk by a misinformed inspector at the Saturday Market. “The money I spent on joining was the best money I have ever spent in a lifetime!”

Farmer’s Markets are the flagship of the innovative and rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer food trend fueled by the public demand for fresher, more nutritious food that is produced closer to home. Millions of food-savvy consumers are bypassing the grocery stores and flocking to innovative outlets like Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Cow-Share Programs, Private Buyers Clubs and Food Co-ops to access food for their families which is not available elsewhere in their communities. Because of the many recent food recalls, the draw to these outlets is fresh, safe, nutritious and non-toxic foods from known sources – local sustainable farmers.

The USDA reports that direct-to-consumer market is the fastest growing sector of the agricultural economy: “Over the past decade, the growth of direct-to-consumer food marketing across all regions far exceeded the growth of total agricultural sales. From 1997-2007, direct-to-consumer food marketing grew by 104.7 percent in the United States, while total agricultural sales increased by only 47.6 percent.” (USDA Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing, May 2009).

“As our name suggests, the Fund was originally created to support the Farmer and the Consumer. Now, we feel it’s essential to support the “to” in our name, the non-profit groups and local food entrepreneurs who are recreating the way that America shops for food,” says Kennedy.

“Our Affiliate Membership Program is the next critical step in our mission to expand and encourage direct-to-consumer trade and ultimately provide our neighbors and communities with easy access to local, fresh and safe sustainably farmed products.” Candidates for Affiliate Memberships include Farmer’s Markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Cow or Goat-Share Programs, Private Buyers Clubs and Food Co-ops.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund defends the rights and broadens the freedoms of sustainable farmers, and protects consumer access to raw milk and local, nutrient-dense foods. Concerned citizens can support the Fund by joining at www.farmtoconsumer. org or by contacting Fund at 703-208-FARM (3276).

The Fund’s sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation works to promote consumer access to raw milk and local, nutrient-dense food, and support for farmers engaged in sustainable farm stewardship. Visit www.farmtoconsumerf oundation. org.

Contact:

Taaron G. Meikle

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

703-860-1010

The man that brought you Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is now america’s food safety czar.

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here’s the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply — the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods — secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn’t going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled — from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world’s top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies “systematically overlook the side effects” and significantly underestimate “the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.”

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90’s, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) — injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk — unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA’s approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor’s disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto’s own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor’s white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto’s Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania — Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn’t afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff’s madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania’s governor is supporting Wolff’s appointment is to get him out of the state — after he “screwed up so badly” with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania’s lead by requiring Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland’s office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa-surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Last week The John Birch Society updated our subscribers on the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) which would place virtually all waters of the United States under the control of the federal government.

As if that is not enough, there is another bill in the House that would place federal control on much of the food industry.

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on February 4, 2009. The bill, which currently carries 40 cosponsors, would effectively transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It would very likely contribute to the eventual abandonment of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to the high probability of overbearing federal regulations arbitrarily determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

H.R. 875 would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by delegating what should be state-level authority to the federal government. The burdensome record keeping that would be required by the FSA would threaten the success of small agricultural businesses and family-owned farms who may not be able to comply with new federal restrictions.

While all Americans should be concerned about yet another power grab at the hands of the federal government, family farm and other small agricultural businesses should be especially cautious of H.R. 875 as it threatens their own businesses and way of living.

Please take a few moments of your time and urge your representative to oppose the passage of H.R. 875 and support the future success of family farms and small agricultural businesses.

Thank you,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/jbs34968879.aspx