Blog

The USDA is calling for comments regarding GMO labeling to be submitted by July 17, 2017

From their website:
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law charges AMS with developing a national mandatory system for disclosing the presence of bioengineered material. USDA has established a working group to develop a timeline for rulemaking and to ensure an open and transparent process for effectively establishing this new program, which will increase consumer confidence and understanding of the foods they buy, and avoid uncertainty for food companies and farmers.  

We are committed to providing multiple opportunities for engagement.

This page will be a continuously updated resource for public notification and collaboration on the development of the new program.

The list of questions being addressed are here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/gmo-questions

Direct Comments directly to [email protected].

If you do not want to answer all 31 questions, you may use an abbreviated, suggested email, see below:

1. ALL GMOs must be labeled. This includes oils, sugars and sugar derivatives, highly processed soy and corn products derived from GMO seeds.

2. ALL GMOs must be labeled clearly, in writing, honestly, with a health warning. We request the following for the current GMOs on the market:

Warning: This product contains genetically modified organisms which have been shown to produce toxins and stimulate tumor growth in animals. Many GMOs are engineered to withstand pesticides which do not dry, wash, or cook off. Therefore, this product may contain carcinogenic, neurotoxic, antibiotic, and endocrine disrupting chemicals which cause liver disease. 

We request that any GMOs in development such as CRISPR, RNAI, gene editing or new GMOs, due to insufficient testing, devastating consequences to life forms, and evidence of thousands of mutations from gene editing, be barred from entering the food supply completely.

3. ALL GMOs in the market must be labeled clearly, in writing, on the package with the above warning in a timely fashion. USDA must meet its deadline of proposed and then final rules by July 29, 2018. Furthermore, the time period allowed for companies to comply should be one year and no longer. Companies have known that consumers want GMO labeling for years. In fact, several companies, such as Campbell's, Mars, ConAgra, General Mills, and Kellogg's already do label, with no increase in the cost of their products.

We ask you to please send your email directly to the EPA. Thousands of signatures on one petition may only count as one signature, so please send your email directly to the USDA today to [email protected] 

Let's be clear.
We do not want GMOs in our food whatsoever. We want them banned.

The current administration, however, is intent on deregulating GMOs and giving GMO manufacturers free reign to patent more GMOs than ever.
Food manufacturers, like Campbell's, ConAgra, General Mills, and Kellogg's and Mars,are realizing, however, that we want transparency.

Some companies have labeled but it is not required.



Nor, de we feel, at this point, that this disclosure "Produced with Genetic Engineering" is sufficient to protect the American people and children.

With the current science available, we feel that the label on GMOs should be a warning label. Not just a label.

It should say:

Warning: This product contains genetically modified organisms which have been shown to produce toxins and stimulate tumor growth in animals. Many GMOs are engineered to withstand pesticides which do not dry, wash, or cook off. Therefore, this product may contain carcinogenic, neurotoxic, antibiotic, and endocrine disrupting chemicals which cause liver disease. 

Today, July 7, 2017, was a historic day for our movement. It is the day that the California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Agency (OEHHA) officially listed glyphosate on the Prop 65 list warning list as a carcinogen. The implications are huge. Within a year, all companies with ten employees or more who manufacture products that expose humans to glyphosate will need to label that product with a warning such as “This product may contain a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.” 

 This is huge news for health advocates and regulators in other states and countries around the world who want more evidence to transition away from using glyphosate and toxic chemicals. 

Exporting GMOs and Importing Organic Threatens National Security 

 We understand that our administration wants to help the Midwest by having more GMO crops grown and sold to China. Last week, China approved two GMO crops, corn and soy, to be imported from the USA and fed to their livestock only. Now midwest USA chemical companies Monsanto and Dow can sell more GMO seed to China.

Is this really a good deal for America? Or are we risking our national security by poisoning our own country with GMO farming, to feed another?

Save

Save

Congratulations to everyone who supported the action of the CA Guild, Moms Across America, and many more to have glyphosate be listed on the Prop 65 carcinogen list! We are extremely happy and proud to share that the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazzard Assessment has announced that the Monsanto lawsuit has been dismissed and glyphosate will be listed officially and legally on July 7, 2017 on the Prop 65 carcinogen list.
Read the announcement here: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-listed-effective-july-7-2017-known-state-california-cause-cancer

And Reuter's article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-glyphosate-california-idUSL1N1JN1L7

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Announcing the debut of our first movie "Communities Rising, A Story of Courage, Creativity, and Contribution!

All across America, everyday citizens are taking action to protect their families from GMOs and toxins.

I could not have been more grateful for our community than I was on Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazzard Assesment hearing for the proposed safe level of glyphosate. At least 100 people attended, 40 of whom spoke from our side against the 5 from Monsanto's side, with clear facts, valid questions, passion, and commitment. Lawyers, scientists, a doctor, many mothers, grandmothers, and plaintiffs of the Monsanto lawsuit for non-Hodgkin Lymphoma pointed out the lack of thorough assessment and faults with the proposed 1100 micrograms per kilogram per day for a 70kg  (154 pounds) adults. Their statements were moving, accurate, and could transform the food supply and health in America.

Watch the stellar news coverage from KPIX CBS and Zen's comments below.

California Guild & Moms Across America URGENT Call to ACTION!!!

CA EPA is holding a public hearing to determine amount of "safe" GLYPHOSATE exposures on CA PROP 65 Toxics List  Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Proposed level is 1100 micrograms No Significant Risk Level (NSRL)  to glyphosate ( an ingredient in RoundUp), on the State’s Prop 65 carcinogen list.  Studies show 1100 micrograms daily to be far too high an exposure level. In comparison chemical 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p -dioxin (TCDD), also on the Prop 65 list has a NSRL Of .000005 micrograms per day. Because glyphosate has been shown to bioaccumulate, and has been shown in the parts per trillion, to increase the growth of breast cancer cells, the reality is that there is no safe level.

Can you attend the hearing to support and/or speak on behalf of your family and the public?

June 7, 2017 Wednesday

12:30 seating, 1:00- 5:00pm hearing

California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building,

Bryon Sher Auditorium - 1001 “I” Street - Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-2068

Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-2068

Save

Thank you for watching, listening, and sharing!

 Article was first seen on Alternet

Investing in a company that sells harmful products like the toxic herbicide Roundup is counter to CalPERS' mission.

By Zen Honeycutt / AlterNet

May 17, 2017

I was recently informed by a former California public health employee, that CalPERS, the state's pension and health care fund, the largest in the nation, has invested $136 million in Monsanto.  

As a California activist committed to healthy communities, I see this investment as a huge conflict of interest. For its health plan subscribers, the CalPERS mission to “advance the financial and health security” of the participants does not align with the detrimental effects of the toxic herbicide Roundup, Monsanto’s number-one product. 

The day after finding out about this ill-advised investment, I sent a letter to CalPERS urging it to divest from Monsanto. They have not responded.

Concerned Californians should be outraged by this investment by CalPERS in Monsanto and the harm that inevitably impacts the very retirees CalPERS is responsible to protect. 

Click here for link to fulll Alternet Article. 

March Against Monsanto in Akron, Ohio (April 8, 2011).

Photo Credit: Bill Baker/Flickr