ESSAY OF THE WEEK
Is the Boycott Strategy Working?
It’s boycott time again.
With less than two weeks to go before voters in Oregon and Colorado decide on ballot initiatives to require mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Junk Food Giants are at it again.
According to the latest numbers provided by the pro-labeling campaigns (as of October 22, 2014), the opposition in Oregon has raised $16.5 million to defeat Measure 92, while opponents of Colorado’s Proposition 105 have raised $14.3 million.
Monsanto is the largest donor to both campaigns, with combined donations totaling approximately $8.8 million. While Dow has spent only $668,000 total in both states, DuPont Pioneer just yesterday dumped a whopping $3 million into the Colorado NO on Prop 105 war chest.
But apart from Monsanto, and now DuPont Pioneer, the most prolific donors to the campaigns intent on defeating the Oregon and Colorado GMO labeling initiatives have been large, multinational food corporations. Many of these corporations own organic and “natural” brands—brands we’ve been asking consumers to boycott ever since Big Food helped defeat Proposition 37, California’s citizen-led GMO labeling initiative, in 2012.
Has the boycott strategy worked?
Aside from a couple of exceptions, the “Traitor Boycott” clearly hasn’t kept Big Food from continuing to make anti-labeling campaign contributions. But there’s evidence that the reputations, and in some cases, revenues, of some of the natural and organic brands have suffered. And even more evidence to suggest that some of their parent companies, including big anti-labeling donors Coca-Cola and General Mills, are struggling to overcome declining profits and consumer distrust.
This much is clear: It’s time to step up the pressure on all of the brands owned by companies that are pouring millions of dollars into defeating your right to know.
ACTION ALERT
Whatever It Takes
When the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meets at the end of this month (October 28 - 30, 2014), the board is expected to review a long list of non-organic and synthetic ingredients that have been allowed in organic, but should be removed.
It’s always been an uphill battle to keep non-organic and synthetic materials out of organic. But last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) made iteven more difficult, when NOP Director Miles McEvoy changed something called the “sunset process.”
"Sunset" refers to a requirement of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), that the use of an approved non-organic or synthetic material expire after five years, unless the NOSB votes to "re-list" (keep the material on the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances) it.
Under the sunset process in place since the first NOSB convened in 1992, it took a decisive vote of 10 out of the NOSB's board’s 15 members to keep a non-organic or synthetic material in organic.
Under the changes made by McEvoy, it now takes only six out of 15 NOSB members to keep a non-organic or synthetic material in organic. This violates OFPA's requirement for a two-thirds vote on all motions
So how do we hope to make any progress at this year’s meeting, toward getting non-organic and synthetic materials that don’t belong in organic, out of organic?
The NOSB could still make an end run around McEvoy’s power grab. By refusing to vote. NOSB review is required under the OPFA, if the NOSB won’t review or vote on a “sunset material” that material can’t get back on the National List.
SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF
Slip Slidin’ Away?
Less than a month ago, the YES on 92 GMO labeling campaign in Oregon was up by 32 points in the polls.
Now, Measure 92 is up by only five points.
We all know why. Millions ($16.5 million to be exact) of dollars pouring into the state. From Monsanto, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and a long list of other junk food and pesticide makers.
We need to hold onto our lead. Better yet, we need to expand it.
Money isn’t the only answer. We need more volunteers to call voters (in both Oregon and Colorado). More scientists and doctors to speak out, publicly. More newspapers to endorse.
But, the plain fact is, we also need more money—to make all of the above happen, while we also maintain a presence on the airwaves.
While the YES on 92 and YES on Prop 105 campaigns continue to reach out to businesses that support our cause, truth be told, the GMO labeling movement has always been a grassroots-led movement. For better or worse, we have only been able to run these campaigns, we’ve only been able to back Monsanto this far into the corner, because people like you have come through.
Thank you for all of your past support. Thank you in advance if you can contribute once again. Lets’ win in Oregon and Colorado on November 4!
Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)
Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Oregon, Colorado and other states)
ACTION ALERT
Secret Weapon
As election day (November 4) approaches, Monsanto and Big Food are flooding the airwaves in Oregon and in Colorado. The last thing they want is for either of these states to pass a GMO labeling initiative.
They have their millions. But we have a secret weapon: you!
Oregon’s Measure 92, and Colorado’s Prop 105, urgently need volunteers to call voters. Research shows that calling voters, and talking to them one-on-one, helps get out the vote.
Never volunteered for a phone bank before? No worries. Sign up and you’ll receive (very easy) instructions.
It doesn’t matter where you live. It won’t cost you anything except an hour or two of your time.
And it could make all the difference.
Sign up to urge Colorado voters to vote YES for GMO labeling
Sign up today to call Oregon voters and urge them to vote YES on 92!
Watch this video to see how easy it is to become a volunteer phone banker in Oregon
Donate to support Yes on 92 and Prop 105
GMO LABELING CAMPAIGN
Money Talks Back
Money talks. But it doesn’t necessarily speak the truth.
Monsanto has spent millions wooing mainstream media with its web of lies. The Gene Giant’s flacks have no doubt patted themselves on the back each time a major publication, like Scientific Americanand the New Yorker have taken a swig of the Kool-Aid.
But one of the anti-GMO movement’s leaders is fighting back. By buying full-page ads, in The New Yorker, Scientific American, Harpers,Harvard, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, and Thrive magazines, to refute one of Monsanto’s favorite myths—that GMO crops lead to a reduction in pesticide use.
This month, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, is running a full-page advertorial by company president David Bronner. It’s called: “Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops Skyrocketing while Pro-GMO Media Runs Interference; Former EPA Senior Scientist’s New Article Sets Record Straight.”
The advertorial summarizes “Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops,” a whitepaper by Dr. Ramon J. Seidler, a former EPA scientist.
Seidler’s work documents the rapid widespread failure of the Bt insecticidal trait in genetically engineered corn in the face of emerging resistance in target insects, leading to huge increases in both systemic insecticides that coat seeds, and pre-emergent insecticides injected directly into soil. He also documents the still under-reported failure of herbicide-tolerant traits leading to huge increases in herbicide use.
NEW STUDY
Not. Safe.
Ever since former Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylorco-authored the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) substantial equivalency policy, which said that genetically modified foods are no different than non-GMO foods, independent scientists (and consumers) have been skeptical. To say the least.
Now yet another new published review, by researchers at the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and the Institute of Health and Environmental Research supports, again, our long-held belief that there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that GMO crops are safe to eat.
What these scientists found may not surprise you. But it will probably get your blood boiling. After you’ve calmed down . . . this would be a great study to share with anyone who tells you GMO foods are “perfectly safe.”
VIDEO OF THE WEEK
One Backyard at a Time
Meet the men and women who are challenging the way this country grows and distributes its food, one vacant city lot, rooftop garden, and backyard chicken co-op at a time.
Growing Cities, a documentary compiled from 140 hours of footage taken on more than 80 urban farms, is coming to a PBS station near you. Check out the fall schedule below. If your station isn’t yet listed, don’t worry—check back later for an updated schedule of spring showings.
Fall PBS broadcast schedule for @GrowinCities
FAIR WORLD PROJECT
Scary Treats
What are some of the scariest treats you could hand out to kids this Halloween?
Chocolate products made by some of the biggest names in chocolate, including Mars, Nestlé and Hershey. (The 10 most popular Halloween candies are all brands owned by either Hershey or Mars).
Hershey is trying to kill GMO labeling bills by donating $380,000 to the NO on Prop 105 initiative in Colorado, and $320,000 to the NO on 92 campaign in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the not-so-fair-minded folks at Nestlé are being sued (and not for the first time) for aiding and abetting child slavery on cacao fields.
Chocolate is a multi-billion dollar industry—noted for corporate consolidation, child labor, worker abuse... and GMOs. When it comes time to hand out treats this Halloween, shop carefully.
LITTLE BYTES
Essential Reading for the Week
Walking More May Be Key for a Longer, Healthier Life
Dr. Huber’s Brave Crusade against Biotech
No No Nano: Macro-Objections to Micro-Machinations of Industrial Processed Food
Prescription Drugs Now Factor in Higher Percentage of Car Crashes
Comments