On April 27, 2015, a judge ruled against the food
industry, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers
Association, upholding Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The
law will go into effect on July 1, 2016
The GMA, Monsanto, and other chemical technology
companies now have only one option remaining: to pass
the Pompeo bill (HR 1599) in 2015, which would strip
states of the right to pass GMO food labeling bills
If we defeat the Pompeo bill, we will have GMO labeling
in the US. It is imperative to contact your
representatives and tell them to vote NO on HR 1599
By Dr. Mercola
Currently, Americans are standing at a crossroads: one way leads
to certain labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods across the
country; the other will lead toward the elimination of that
possibility.
If you've never taken action on this issue before, I urge you to
do so now. We need every single American who cares about this issue
to make their opinion known very clearly to their federal
representatives.
According to recent polls done by the
Organic Consumers Association (OCA), over 90 percent of the
public definitely wants to know what's in their food.
Demands for labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
were recently stimulated even further when the prestigious
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World
Health Organization declared glyphosate a "probable carcinogen."1,2
Research3
has also revealed that inert ingredients like ethoxylated adjuvants
in glyphosate-based herbicides are "active principles of human cell
toxicity." They also suspect that4
Roundup might interfere with hormone production, possibly leading to
abnormal fetal development, low birth weights, or miscarriages.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide
Roundup, is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all
GMO crops, including soy, corn, canola, and sugar beets—all the
key ingredients in processed foods.
After reviewing 44 scientific studies, half of the IARC panel
thought that glyphosate should be classified as a Group 1 "known
carcinogen," with the other half opting for a Group 2 "probable
carcinogen" rating.
Environmental groups recently sent a letter5
to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the
agency to reexamine the safety of glyphosate in light of the IARC's
determination.
As noted by Ronnie Cummins of the OCA,6
"Given the fact that new peer-reviewed studies damning glyphosate
are being published nearly every week, the IARC may very well
reclassify glyphosate as a 'known carcinogen' in the near future."
But merely hoping and wishing for labeling that will help you
avoid GMOs won't make it happen. Action is absolutely required at
this time, and here's why.
Major Victory for Vermont—Federal Judge Upholds GMO Labeling Law
On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed the first
no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill (H.112) by an overwhelming
margin—28-2. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives
on April 23.
The bill was immediately attacked by industry. Spearheaded by the
Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), they
sued Vermont to block the implementation of the law.
On April 27, 2015, Judge Christina Reiss ruled in Vermont's
favor.7
The law stands, and will go into effect on July 1, 2016. As reported
by Vermont Right to Know GMOs:8
"The judge also dismissed a number of the plaintiffs'
claims including assertions that the law violates the commerce
clause and was expressly preempted by federal law.
Possibly, the most important aspect of the ruling is that
the law's requirement that GMOs be labeled is constitutional
under the First Amendment...
'The GMO food giants aren't used to losing, but they were
just knocked on their collective keister by the state of
Vermont,' said VPIRG Executive Director Paul Burns. 'Consumers
across the country will no doubt take notice.'"
The Grocery Manufacturers Association has asked the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn the April 27 ruling. GMA
president Pamela Bailey issued a statement saying:
“The court’s opinion in denying our request to block the
Vermont law opens the door to states creating mandatory labeling
requirements based on pseudo-science and web-fed hysteria. If
this law is allowed to go into effect, it will disrupt food
supply chains, confuse consumers, and lead to higher food
costs.”
Bailey also stressed that the federal court’s ruling—which
determined that existing US law does not preempt state’s GMO
labeling laws—“shows why Congress should pass the voluntary uniform
GMO labeling bill quickly and federally preempt state mandatory GMO
laws.”
It’s a big risk for them to appeal, because if they lose – and
from the judge’s comments it’s going to be very hard to overturn –
it’s going to be a tough blow to their federal ambitions of passing
the Pompeo bill. That would then leave them with a final option, a
Supreme Court ruling.
While there are questions about the impact former Monsanto man
Clarence Thomas may have on the case, a Supreme Court ruling in
GMA’s favor would invalidate 150 state laws that have existed for
decades. From wild rice, maple syrup, and Alaskan seafood –
these are all enforced labeling standards that were created by the
states.
This would be extremely difficult for them to justify. Their only
chance is through the interstate commerce clause, but it would be
one of the most bizarre things to take place in the food industry.
That said, by the time they get to Supreme Court, Vermont’s law will
already be in place---it will likely be in place before the appeal
will even take place. July 1, 2016 is the date as of which GMOs must
be labeled in Vermont. So while Monsanto and the GMA will most
certainly push this all the way to the Supreme Court, in the
meantime they still have to start labeling their foods. This is an
enormous victory, and the Vermont team deserves much appreciation
from all of us.
Defeat the Pompeo Bill, and GMO Labeling Can Become Reality!
As it currently stands, the GMA, Monsanto and other chemical
technology companies now have only one solid option
remaining: to pass the federal Pompeo bill (HR 1599) in 2015, which
would trump state law and strip states of the right to pass
GMO food
labeling bills.
The bill also allows unscrupulous food and beverage companies to
continue mislabeling GMO-tainted foods as "natural" or "all
natural." The Pompeo bill, ironically named "The Safe and Accurate
Food Labeling Act," is proposing nothing if not inaccurate
labeling of foods, by preventing you from ever learning which foods
may contain GMOs. Critics of the bill have dubbed it the DARK Act,
aka "Deny Americans the Right-to-Know" Act, which is exactly what
the bill does.
Stopping the passing of the Pompeo bill is THE most important
action anyone concerned about GMOs can possibly take right now, and
the outcome will quite possibly determine the future of agriculture.
It's the choice of a regenerative or degenerative food system; a
choice of monoculture or diversity, of obesity or wellness,
pollution, or nutrition.
The DARK Act (HR 1599) was introduced by Koch-sponsored
Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS4). And while republicans are
supposedly "standing together" to defend state rights, many
republicans are joining with Pompeo to remove the rights of
states, and to remove citizens' right to know about genetically
engineered foods.
It's an indefensible republican position, and they need to hear
about this hypocrisy. As noted by Colin O'Neil, director of
Government Affairs for Center for Food Safety last year:9
"GMA's selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how
extreme the proposal really is."
We need everyone to put pressure on your federal representatives,
and demand they vote NO on the Pompeo bill. We need to do everything
we possibly can to prevent this bill from passing. A
list of all the sponsors of Pompeo’s bill can be found on the
congressional website.10
Democrats shouldn’t be fighting against consumers based on
their supposed purpose as democrats, yet many are cosponsoring the
bill. And Republicans are supposed to stand up for state’s rights,
yet they’ve put their names to this bill as well. In short, they’re
all hypocrites fighting what a federal judge has
already ruled as constitutional.
Don't Fall for Front Groups' Hollow Fear Tactics
One of the primary justifications for removing states' rights to
implement their own labeling laws is that a "patchwork" of state
laws11
will create havoc and excessive expense. These arguments are
complete nonsense.
The industry front group "Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food"
is trying to confuse Americans about the need to label GMOs,
ironically proposing that labeling will confuse you, and raise food
prices. They also claim that state decisions to label GMOs will
force food companies to create multiple supply chains, warehousing,
and delivery mechanisms to comply. All of these notions are false,
and perhaps the biggest fallacy of them all is the last item.
They are misleading and lying to you by conveniently not telling
you that companies simply would not label a product as GMO when sold
in one state, and not when sold in another. State laws effectively
force companies to label their foods across the US, regardless of
the state it's being sold in. Anything less would be to commit
public relations' suicide.
They also want you to think that compliance is going to be a
major hassle, when in fact compliance will be the same for all
states, because the leading advocacy groups that are currently
helping to enable GMO labeling are and will continue to support
identical compliance for all state laws that will be passed.
All a manufacturer needs to do is print "Produced with Genetic
Engineering" on the label. That's all that is required.
Enforcement of these laws, however, should be left up to each
state. Different size states have different abilities and
efficiencies to determine how best to enforce their laws (states get
to decide capital punishment, why not let them determine how to
enforce their own food labeling laws?).
Pompeo Bill Is Trying to Legalize Fraud
It's important to recognize that not labeling transgenic food is
fraud, so the Pompeo bill is essentially just trying to legalize it.
As an example, salmon spliced with eel is no longer the salmon you
would expect when seeing "salmon" written on a label. It's a cross
between salmon and eel, something akin to a "sEELmon," and that must
be disclosed. Not disclosing this fact is fraud because it is
counter to a consumer's expectation.
The burden should not be placed on the traditional salmon
fishermen to get their nature-provided fish certified as
GMO-free; the burden of truthful declaration of what the product
actually is should be placed on the patent holder and producer of
these transgenic organisms.
The same logic should apply to crops. Research12
has shown that there are significant compositional differences
between genetically engineered (GE) soybeans and non-GE varieties,
for example. Contrary to industry claims, the study found that they
also differ in terms of nutritional quality, with organic soybeans
having the healthiest nutritional profile. According to the authors,
"This study rejects that genetically modified soy is
'substantially equivalent' to non-GM soybeans."
For close to 20 years the American public has been exposed to
these largely experimental, untested foods. The FDA claims GMOs can
be presumed safe, and that there was an "overwhelming scientific
consensus" backing up their decision to categorize GMOs as generally
recognized as safe (GRAS) back in 1992. Yet, the evidence shows that
is a bold-faced lie.
Steven Druker reveals this and much more in his book Altered
Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically
Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and
Systematically Deceived the Public.
The industry keeps replaying the old refrain that there is
"overwhelming scientific consensus" that GMOs are safe, when in fact
there really is no such consensus. To highlight and drive home this
point, on January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists,
researchers, physicians, and scholars was published in the
peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe,13
unequivocally asserting that there isnoscientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.
Moreover, the paper, titled No Scientific Consensus on GMO
Safety, states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO
safety is in actuality "an artificial construct
that has been falsely perpetuated." The paper also notes
that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright
ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad
diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."
In fact, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Anthony Samsel, he
reveals that he was able to force Monsanto to send him documents
from their initial research in1981, showing clearly that glyphosate
caused tumors in nearly all the rats that were exposed to it. In
light of this, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the Pompeo
bill, which would eliminate your right to know that you're eating
GMOs, is a last-ditch effort to legalize decades' long fraud?
GMOs Have Led to Massive Increase in Toxic Pesticide
Use—Not Less!
According to the industry front group Coalition for Safe and
Affordable Food, GMOs reduce water and pesticide use. Anyone who
believes this standing PR talking point these days is unaware of the
statistics, which clearly show that neither of these claims are
true.
As noted in a 2012 article by Tom Philpott,14
Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology "has called forth a veritable
monsoon of herbicides, both in terms of higher application rates for
Roundup, and... growing use of other, more toxic herbicides."
Philpott's article includes eye-opening statistics compiled by Chuck
Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University's
Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. Benbrook
discovered that:
Overall, GE technology drove up herbicide use by 527 million
pounds (about 11 percent) between 1996 (when Roundup Ready crops
were initially released) and 2011
Herbicide use dropped by about two percent between 1996 and
1999, but shortly thereafter, as weeds began developing
resistance against the chemical, application rates skyrocketed
Rapidly increasing weed resistance is driving up the volume
of herbicide needed by about 25 percent annually. The recent
approvals of 2,4-D and dicamba resistant GE crops may drive it
up by another 50 percent, according to research published in
Environmental Sciences Europe15
In 2002, glyphosate use on Roundup Ready soybeans rose by 21
percent. Overall, American farmers increased their use of
glyphosate by 19 million pounds that year
By 2011, farmers growing Roundup Ready crops (corn, soy, and
cotton) used 24 percent more Roundup than farmers planting
non-GE versions of the same crop, because by that time,
glyphosate-resistance had become the norm. Farmers also began
resorting to older, more
toxic herbicides like 2,4-D
Toxins in Food Supply Are Now a Major Contributor to Chronic Disease
As noted by Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno,16
founding president of naturopathic Bastyr University and former
advisor to President Clinton on complementary and alternative
medicines, "toxins in the modern food supply are now a major
contributor to, and in some cases the cause of, virtually all
chronic diseases." David Bellinger, a professor of
Neurology at Harvard Medical School, estimates Americans have lost a
total of 16.9 million IQ points due to exposure to organophosphate
pesticides.17
The World Health Organization (WHO) has now acknowledged that
glyphosate is a human carcinogen, and compelling research shows that
bees and
butterflies—critical food crop pollinators—are disappearing at
alarming rates because of the toxic pesticides associated with these
GMO monocultures. Glyphosate has also been found to be highly toxic
to the soil surrounding a plant's roots (the rhizosphere), woodland
plants, amphibians, fish, aquatic environments, and mammals18--causing
reproductive problems and disrupting the endocrine system.
Even IF genetically engineered crops could produce more food to
feed a growing population (and research shows organic agriculture is
actually more efficient at creating higher yields with less input),
what good will it do to produce more food if it's all toxic—to
microbes, insects, animals, and humans alike? Ask yourself, who
benefits from the idea that we "need" genetic engineering to
survive? This notion is a manufactured one that has no solid basis
in reality.
When you consider that Americans eat an average of 193 pounds of
genetically engineered foods each year,19
the issues of compositional equivalency and glyphosate contamination
are undoubtedly both important.
Avoiding Toxic Food Is Imperative for Optimal Health
The chemical technology industry, spearheaded by Monsanto, has
managed to turn food into a literal poison. Glyphosate, which we
know systemically contaminates the plant as it is integrated into
every call of the plant and cannot be washed off, has a number of
devastating biological effects, including the following:
Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes
certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of
the treated crop
Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids
(these are essential amino acids not produced in your body
that must be supplied via your diet)
Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of
glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself)
Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism;
sulfate deficiency
Systemic toxicity—a side effect of extreme disruption of
microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes
in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens
Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation,
leaky gut, food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne
chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of
glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes
Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain
microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain
inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer's disease
Ideally, you'd be best off opting for products bearing the USDA
100% organic label when buying processed foods in order to avoid
exposure to agricultural chemicals, which certainly are not limited
to Roundup. Don't make the mistake of confusing the
"natural" label with organic standards however.
The "natural" label is not based on any standards and is
frequently misused by sellers of GE products. You'd also be wise to
stop using Roundup around your home, where children and pets can
come into contact with it simply by walking across the area.
More Chemical Technology 'Bio-Ag' Lies
Contrary to industry propaganda, GMOs are only making a bad
situation worse. Chemical agriculture in and of itself is a hazard
to human and environmental health, and must be addressed if we want
to get a handle on runaway disease statistics. GE crops are chemical
agriculture on steroids. Here are a few more inconvenient facts the
industry is trying to sweep under the carpet:
Synthetic fertilizers are
polluting our waters, including drinking water, thereby
posing a direct threat to human health.
Aquifers are being drained to water corn, half of which is
used for ethanol—a fact that makes the argument about "feeding
the world" rather bizarre.
Glyphosate is not only carcinogenic, it's also promoting
antibiotic resistance, as evidenced in a groundbreaking study.20,21
Roundup was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess
of E. coli and Salmonella—two bacteria responsible for a large
portion of foodborne illness.
Dicamba and 2,4-D were also found to promote antibiotic
resistance, which is particularly relevant in light of the
recent approval of a
new generation of GE crops resistant not only to glyphosate,
but also to one or both of these pesticides.
This research implies that combating the weed and pest
resistance caused by Roundup Ready GE crops by introducing
dicamba- and 2,4-D-resistant varieties is probably only going to
speed up the process of creating
multi-drug resistant pathogens that are already killing
23,000 Americans each year. Experts are now warning that we may
soon be at a point where ALL antibiotics fail, and once that
happens, it will be the end of modern medicine as we know it.
It's quite crucial to understand that glyphosate
contamination in GE crops is systemic, meaning it is
present in every cell of the plant, from root to tip. It's not
just an issue of topical contamination—although that certainly
adds to the level of contamination.
Normally, you need to thoroughly wash your produce to remove
topical residues, but you cannot remove glyphosate from
GE produce, as it has been absorbed into the cells of the plant.
And neither can food and animal feed manufacturers who use GE
ingredients in their products.
Millions of acres of GMO corn and soy are used to make to
human poisons—high
fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and hydrogenated vegetable oil
(trans fats)—another fact that makes the argument about "feeding
a growing population" completely ludicrous. The vast majority of
GE crops grown in the US (corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets)
are used to make cheap ingredients for processed foods that are
grossly inferior in terms of nutrition to whole organic foods.
While the industry puts on this façade of supplying the world
with critically needed foods, what they're really doing is
producing foods that have been scientifically proven to promote
obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and associated chronic
diseases—all while making a killing on royalties from patented
seeds and pesticide sales.
The majority of the GE corn and soy grown is used to support
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which is the
primary source of antibiotic resistance that kills tens of
thousands of Americans annually.
Other Countries Stand to Lose Big Due to 'Monsanto Provision' in US
Fast Track Legislation
As explained by Ben Lilliston in a recent interview,
Fast Track (also known as trade promotion authority, or TPA)
gives the President the right to negotiate and finalize a trade
agreement, which Congress then votes on in its entirety. And, once
the agreements are completed, you can no longer make any amendments.
Under the US constitution, Congress has the right to engage in
trade agreements prior to this, and to set negotiating parameters.
Under Fast Track, Congress forfeits this right, allowing the
President to negotiate at will instead. According to a recent press
release:22
"Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) today spoke out against a
provision buried in trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation
that could help a government or multinational corporation attack
state or national laws that require the labeling of genetically
engineered foods.... The Obama administration is asking Congress
for fast track authority in order to negotiate the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP), a free trade agreement with the European
Union.
'Call it the smoking gun,' said DeFazio. 'Proof that fast
track and massive free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership are written by and for
multinational corporations such as agriculture giant
Monsanto. Instead of using trade deals as an opportunity to
protect and strengthen consumer rights by joining the countries
which require genetically engineered food to be labeled, this
administration wants to benefit wealthy corporations at the
expense of the public.'"
The provision in question is included in the Trade Negotiating
Objectives, and requires American negotiators to fight for trade
agreement rules that eliminate "barriers" to markets. One such
barrier is the labeling of GE foods, which 64 countries already
require. Some of our largest trading partners, such as Japan, China,
Brazil, and the European Union, stand to lose the most from this
legislation. As noted by Colin O'Neil, director of Government
Affairs at Center for Food Safety:
"At a time when Americans overwhelmingly want a right to
know what they are buying and feeding their families, it is
appalling that Congress would encourage stripping other
countries of their right to label genetically engineered foods.
Each country has justifiably required the labeling of GE foods;
the only thing that cannot be justified is why consumers in the
US don't have the same right to know as consumers in 64 other
countries around the world."
It's Time to Take Decisive Action
I urge you to take action and get organized. Let your
representatives know you will not accept a Yes vote on HR
1599 (aka the DARK act), and that they will not serve another term
if they vote in favor of it. This may be the single most important
action you can take this year, so please do not put this off. This
is our chance to get GMOs labeled in the US—but we MUST stop the
Pompeo bill to make that a reality. It's really make or break time.
Vermont's victory against the GMA has set the precedent that
state GMO labeling laws are constitutional, and there's nothing
Monsanto et al. can do about it. And, as mentioned earlier, food
companies simply are not going to produce two different kinds of
packages, some with GMO label and some without, depending on which
state the product is destined to be sold in.
What will happen is, they'll label the product as GMO regardless
of where it's sold, and if sales are threatened, they'll start
trading out the GMO ingredients to avoid the dreaded label
requirement.
The reason the industry is threatening you with higher food
prices and convoluted distribution chains is because they know this,
and they want to avoid having to replace the GMO ingredients. Were
there price hikes when trans fats had to be labeled? Did you notice
price hikes when any other ingredient had to be listed on
the package? No? Then why would you expect a price hike now?
The fact of the matter is, Monsanto and its henchmen are trying
to protect a huge cash cow with multiple golden teats—patented
seeds, pesticides, and cheap tax-dollar subsidized ingredients with
which to make processed foods—all of which hurts you while
benefiting them. There's nothing safe or accurate about Pompeo's
"Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," and our representatives need
to be told we will not tolerate it.
What Are GMOs?
GMOs are a product of genetic engineering, meaning their genetic
makeup has been altered to induce a variety of “unique” traits to
crops, such as making them drought-resistant or giving them “more
nutrients.” GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe
and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry.
They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and
sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe
not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the
greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT
the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about
what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate
agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American
agriculture. For example, Monsanto has made many claims that
glyphosate in Roundup is harmless to animals and humans. However,
recently the World Health Organization (WHO) had their research team
test glyphosate and have labeled it a probable carcinogen.
Public opinion around the biotech industry's contamination of our
food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the
tipping point. We're fighting back. That's why I was the first to
push for GMO labeling. I donated a significant sum to the first
ballot initiative in California in 2012, which inspired others to
donate to the campaign as well. We technically "lost the vote, but
we are winning the war, as these labeling initiatives have raised a
considerable amount of public awareness.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support
comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real
change comes from the grassroots.
Recently, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) has reintroduced a bill (HR
1599) that would preempt states' rights to enact GMO labeling laws.
This bill would create a federal government program to oversee
guidelines for voluntary labeling of products that do not contain
GMOs. It would specifically prohibit Congress or individual states
from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients. It
would also allow food manufacturers to use the word "natural" on
products that contain GMOs. TAKE ACTION NOW! Your local
representatives need to hear from you! Please contact them today by
CLICKING HERE
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these junk food
manufacturers, pesticide producers, and corporate giants.
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a
public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice
and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a
healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and
consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.