Home

Brasscheck TV: How Corporations Ruined Food (Food Industry Documentary) – Real Stories

2 Comments

Originally published:

Real Stories

Published on Nov 17, 2017

 

When we walk into a supermarket, we assume that
we have the widest possible choice of healthy foods.
But in fact, over the course of the 20th century, our food
system was co-opted by corporate forces whose
interests do not lie in providing the public with fresh, healthy,
sustainably-produced food. Fortunately for
America, an alternative emerged from the counter-culture
of California in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
where a group of political anti-corporate protesters–led
by Alice Waters–voiced their dissent by creating
a food chain outside of the conventional system.
The unintended result was the birth of a vital
local-sustainable-organic food movement which has
brought back taste and variety to our tables.
FOOD FIGHT is a fascinating look at how American agricultural
policy and food culture developed in the
20th century, and how the California food movement has
created a counter-revolution against
big agribusiness.
Want to watch more full-length Documentaries?
Follow us on Twitter for more – https://twitter.com/realstoriesdocs
Instagram – @realstoriesdocs
Content licensed from Cargo Film & Releasing. Any queries,
please contact us at: realstories@littledotstudios.com Produced by Chris Taylor

Properly label gmo food! We have a right to know what we are eating!

3 Comments

We have just a few days to stop the United States government from preventing the world from properly labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have adopted a pro-corporate position that laughably claims labeling GM/GE foods creates the “false” impression that “that the labeled food is in some way different from other foods.”

And next week, at the United Nations meeting in Canada, they will tell the world to adopt the same position, preventing other countries from rightly labeling GMOs as different from fresh, natural food. The implications of this position could further undermine organic food standards all over the world, especially organic labeling.

We know that GMO food created by the likes of Monsanto is not only “different” but unhealthy and unsustainable. Can you help us tell the USDA and FDA to wake up and drop this ridiculous position?

Click here to tell the USDA and FDA: the world should be free to label GMO foods as such.

While the rest of the world wants to be able to label unnatural GMOs, Barack Obama’s USDA and FDA have adopted pro-corporate food positions GMOs. Unless we act now, the United States will go to this meeting telling the world that GMO foods are not different and should not be labeled.

GMO foods, by definition, are genetically different. By altering nature’s design in order to withstand a barrage of chemicals and other poisons, humans are without question creating a new, different kind of food.

We need to tell the USDA and FDA to abandon its wrongheaded, corporate food position that GMOs are the same as non-GMO foods. Sign our petition now before the deadline on Monday.

Thank you for your support on this urgent petition – please share this with anyone you know who cares about their food.

Best,

Lisa Madison
Distribution & Outreach Coordinator
FRESH

Monsanto targets alfalfa for its next take-over

11 Comments

Genetic food giant Monsanto is at it again. Its next target: a new product that could eliminate all organic alfalfa, a key food for raising organic-fed cows and pigs without any genetic engineering. Oceanflynn on Flickr

The USDA is well on its way to approving Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa. In its own report, the USDA says that not enough consumers care enough about organic foods for the USDA to block Monsanto’s modified alfalfa seeds. [1]  This is absurd since one of the main reasons people buy organic food is to avoid genetically engineered crops. More

NOSB recommending untested genetically engineered vaccines

Leave a comment

Jackass Alert # 6:  Livestock Committee of the National Organic Standards Board

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

getimageThe Livestock Committee of the National Organic Standards Board is recommending that genetically engineered vaccines be allowed in organic livestock production, with no review of the vaccines to determine if they meet evaluation criteria established in the Organic Foods Production Act.

In another round of what is coming to be viewed as absolute insanity in the wild world of genetically mutated agriculture, this “board” has now decided that it does not have to meet criteria for testing the efficacy or safety of,  genetically mutated vaccines to be used in livestock. 

We all need to remember that any vaccine, any growth hormone or antibiotic, remains in the meat even after processing.  These toxic concoctions are also present in the urine and feces of animals subjected to their use and as such, have rendered manure unfit as a fertilizer (this after thousands of years of use as the best fertilizer).  The manure produce by animals infected with these toxic chemicals is then leached into soil and water as the now, hazardous, waste breaks down.

And they still intend to call this “organic”?     Read the September 2009 report.

The NOSB will consider the issue when it meets Nov. 3-5, 2009, in Washington DC. Comments must be submitted by Oct. 19.

Here is a link for submitting comments:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a1f227

NAIS Threatens Access to Organic, Local and Sustainable Food

Leave a comment

rev-13-17_s2

http://www.naturalnews.com/025569.html

What is NAIS ~~How Do We Protect Ourselves?

 

Monday, February 09, 2009

 by: Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor(NaturalNews)

 

At first glance, many readers of Natural News will think the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is nothing that concerns them because they eat only plant based foods. However, NAIS is only one part of a much bigger issue. The implementation of NAIS directly threatens the ability of everyone to eat locally grown, organic, and sustainable foods, including fruits and vegetables. NAIS is the first step in the final round of the takeover and regulation of all agricultural products, including plant based foods and supplements. Once NAIS is implemented it will be easy for growers of all agricultural products to be pushed around, intimidated and finally taken over by big agribusiness and its best friend, the government. NAIS is the next step in the destruction of the freedom to eat as we choose and enhance our health with supplements.

If you are opposed to the loss of liberty and the expansion of government tyranny that NAIS represents, your help is urgently needed to block the next step in its implementation. Comments must be received at the USDA by March 16, 2009. Specific information and a link to sample comments appear at the end of this article.

Article also incudes:

NAIS hands over production of food to factory farms

What is NAIS?

NAIS will result in a decrease in food safety

Costs are high and benefits are low with NAIS

It is critical that the USDA and Congress hear from the millions of people who will be adversely affected by the NAIS program. This includes animal owners, consumers who care about locally produced, organic, and sustainable foods, taxpayers who object to wasteful government programs and expanding government bureaucracy, advocates for a safe food system, and anyone who wishes to continue to have access to nourishing food and supplements.

Step 1: Submit comments to the USDA online or by mail. The comments must be received at the USDA by March 16, 2009.

Submit comments online at:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmpubli…
Click on the yellow balloon under “add comments”.

Or mail two copies of your comments to USDA:
Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118

Clearly state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096.

Here is a link to downloadable sample comments:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/cont… Click on the sample comments link

STEP 2: Send a copy of your comments to your Congressman and Senators.

You can find who represents you, and their contact information, at www.congress.org

Sources: WWW.naisSTINKS.com research.

Farm and Ranch Freedom Allance http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/

www.nonais.com

Stop the National Animal Identification System http://sovereignty.net/library/libr…

 

 

Sign the Millions Against Monsanto Petition

6 Comments

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1265

Sign the Millions Against Monsanto Petition

This is a copy of the petition letter:  To sign for yourself, use the link provided. 

This letter is provided only as a sample. 

Hugh Grant
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO-63167
(314) 694-1000

Dear Mr. Grant:

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the direction Monsanto Company has taken in the past decade with respect to sustainable agriculture and farmers’ rights. Right now we are at a critical crossroads in history, and I fear that Monsanto Company is not contributing to the nation’s welfare with a “profits over people” attitude.

Monsanto Company has embarked on a vicious campaign against family farmers in the North American heartland, as well as across the world. These hardworking farmers are the backbone of our nation’s food supply and national security. The current climate of insecurity has been exacerbated by your company’s policies of intimidation, lawsuits and defamation.

Monsanto’s legal actions against Percy Schmeiser, the Rodney Nelson family, and the Oakhurst Dairy for example, are deplorable attacks, and do not reflect your “Stake in the Ground” pledge to honesty and decency.

The North American farm sector is becoming a veritable wasteland. Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered crops have increased pesticide use, destroyed key export markets and threaten global food safety. Over 90% of American consumers want genetically engineered foods labeled, while 60% or more want GE-Free food for themselves and for their families.

Family farmers have the right to produce the safe, sustainable food without fear of intimidation and litigation. Consumers have the right to choose food that guarantees their families’ health and safety. I demand that Monsanto change course by adopting the following practices:

1. Stop intimidating small family farmers
2. Stop force-feeding untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods on consumers
3. Stop using billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidize genetically engineered crops- cotton, soybeans, corn, and canola.
Sincerely,

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1265  to sign the petition provided by Organic Consumers Association

Genetically Engineered Crops Are Not the Solution to World Hunger

Leave a comment

Article from…. Organic Consumers Association

OCA has an archive of articles seldom rivaled.  Please visit their site by clicking on the banner ad to your right. 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/

Genetically Engineered Crops Are Not the Solution to World Hunger

EXTRACTS: As Defra chief scientist Bob Watson has unambiguously stated, “The absence of GM crops is not the driver of hunger today.”

To continue to pretend otherwise is unforgivable as it diverts valuable attention and resources from reliable, accessible and low cost alternatives that are available NOW to help meet the needs of the poor and hungry.
— —
GM no solution to global hunger
http://www.bangmfood.org/feed-the-world/17-feeding-the-wo…

In the face of massive food price inflation affecting some of the poorest countries in the world, claims that GM crops are the silver bullet that can deliver cheap and abundant food for all are once again being made. The evidence to support such claims, however, is scant to non-existent, as noted by the recently concluded International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a process involving 400 scientific experts initiated by the World Bank with the co-sponsorship of the United Nations.

The IAASTD process involved a thorough sifting of the evidence about agriculture and food production, and took four years to complete. Its 2500-page report, based on peer reviewed publications, concluded that the yield gains in GM crops “were highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined”. The report also noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” Asked at a press conference whether GM crops were the simple answer to hunger and poverty, IAASTD Director Professor Bob Watson (former director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as of 2008, chief scientist at Defra) replied, “I would argue, no”. The UK Government approved the IAASTD report on 9 June 2008.

The report not only brought into question GM’s claims to be the solution to global poverty and hunger but also to be a solution to climate change. In fact, GM crops are seen by many as reinforcing an outdated model of agriculture, unsuited for dealing with the conditions that climate change and expensive scarce oil bring for global food security. Many also see GM crops as anti-innovation, because they involve patents which restrict the sharing of knowledge and technology.

Large sections of the IAASTD report favoured truly innovative approaches to improving agriculture and increasing food production. These involve techniques suited to small farmers that minimize the use of increasingly expensive fossil fuel-derived inputs like fertilisers and pesticides. These approaches to cultivation and pest control recognise the value, particularly to the poor and hungry, of low-cost practices using locally available materials and technologies in an environmentally sensitive manner. They include integrated pest management (IPM) and agroecological, or even fully organic, methods.

These innovative farming methods have met with remarkable success, both in the developing and developed world. The IAASTD report notes that they can deliver effective crop protection and pesticide reduction and yield advantages. The yield advantages of IPM have been particularly strong in the developing world, increasing productivity for poor farmers while enhancing sustainability. This, the report notes, has significant policy implications for food security. The IAASTD report also notes that the community-wide economic, social, health and environmental benefits of these approaches have been widely documented.

After the publication of one study looking at a large number of projects in the developing world, New Scientist commented, “Low-tech ‘sustainable agriculture’, shunning chemicals in favour of natural pest control and fertiliser, is pushing up crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more… The findings will make sobering reading for people convinced that only genetically modified crops can feed the planet’s hungry in the 21st century… A new science-based revolution is gaining strength built on real research into what works best on the small farms where a billion or more of the world’s hungry live and work… It is time for the major agricultural research centres and their funding agencies to join the revolution.”

Here are some examples of the remarkable gains in productivity that have been achieved:

* Some 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to some 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms. This has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities;

* More than 300,000 farmers in southern and western India farming in dryland conditions, and now using a range of water and soil management technologies, tripled sorghum and millet yields to some 2-2.5 tons/hectare;

* Some 200,000 farmers across Kenya, participating in government and non-government soil and water conservation and sustainable agriculture programmes, more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons;

* 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico adopted fully organic production methods, and yet increased yields by half;

* A million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides, and increased their yields by about 10%.

The lot of small farmers in the developing world can also be greatly improved by other practical measures ­ for example, through facilitating access to affordable finance (microcredit, grants) or through increasing investment in rural infrastructure, such as road, transport, and storage facilities. In contrast, when it comes to helping the developing world, GM technology is failing to deliver. As Defra chief scientist Bob Watson has unambiguously stated, “The absence of GM crops is not the driver of hunger today.”

In a recent letter in the UK press, the chairman of the government agency Natural England (formerly English Nature), Sir Martin Doughty, is equally blunt: “We need to be mindful of the lessons of the past before rushing headlong to embrace genetically modified crops as the solution to rising food prices… GM crops can in no way be seen as a quick fix.”

To continue to pretend otherwise is unforgivable as it diverts valuable attention and resources from reliable, accessible and low cost alternatives that are available NOW to help meet the needs of the poor and hungry.

Find out more about the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD):

Read the report http://www.agassessment.org/

Coverage of the IAASTD report:

“GM food ‘not the answer’ to world’s food shortage crisis, says report”, Sean Poulter, The Daily Mail, 16 April 2008, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559965/GM-foods-a…

“Change in farming can feed world ­ report”, John Vidal, The Guardian, April 16 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/food.bi…

“IAASTD Report: GM crops not the solution to World Hunger”, Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC, Impact Mag vol.42 no.6, June 2008, http://www.scribd.com/doc/3804302/Impact-Mag-vol42no06

See also:

“Biotech snake oil: a quack cure for hunger”, Bill Freese, Multinational Monitor, Vol. 29 No. 2, Sept-Oct 2008, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/092008/freese….

“Genetic engineering ­ a crop of hyperbole”, Doug Gurian-Sherman, San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008, http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1…

“Feeding the world?”, Prof Jules Pretty, SPLICE, Vol. 4 Issue 6, http://ngin.tripod.com/article2.htm

“Organic farming ‘could feed Africa’ – report”, Daniel Howden, The Independent, 22 October 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-fa…

“Is ecological agriculture productive?”, Lim Li Ching, Third World Network, November 2008, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri064.htm

“Biotech has bamboozled us all”, George Monbiot, The Guardian, 24 August 2000, http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2000/aug/24/foodan…

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: