FOOD AT THE TABLE. FINALLY
Ronnie Cummins- Organic Consumers Assoc.
It was the largest climate march—and conversation—in history.
And this time, food was at the table.
OCA International Director Ronnie Cummins, along with other staff members and OCA allies, marched under the “Cook Organic Not the Planet” banner on Sunday, September 21, as part of the Food Justice Contingent of the People’s Climate March.
In all, there were nearly 50,000 people in the contingent representing food, agriculture, farming and food justice groups.
OCA’s message? Industrial agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions—and its counterpart, organic regenerative farming and ranching, offers not only a way to reverse global warming, but a way to have better soil, better health, more justice for farmers, and a proven path for feeding the world.
OCA organized and participated in workshops on Saturday, September 20, and co-hosted a press event on Monday, September 22.
We brought together scientists and journalists, funders and activists, farmers and visionaries.
As Vandana Shiva said at our press conference, by focusing almost exclusively on the energy industry and ignoring the role industrial agriculture plays in global warming, we have been suffering from a “monoculture of the mind.”
It’s time to change.
As Anna Lappé told workshop attendees, “We are here to put the food industry on notice. They are driving this crisis.”
Critics of the march claimed the peaceful protest lacked a unified message.
They missed the point.
As the march’s organizers said from the very beginning, “We need everyone to change everything.”
And everyone showed up. Including those of us who believe that how we grow food has everything to do with our health, and the health of the planet.
More on OCA’s participation in the weekend’s events
OCA’s Cook Organic not the Planet banners make the list of top protest signs
Read Ronnie’s essay on how organic farming can reverse climate change
ACTION ALERT
'Homegrown' No More
The company whose mission it is to “cultivate a healthier and happier world by spreading goodness through nourishing foods, honest words and conduct that is considerate and forever kind to the planet” has sold out—to the company whose mission it is to keep you in the dark about what’s in your food.
Earlier this month (September 2014), General Mills announced it will buy Annie’s Homegrown in a deal worth $820 million.
Annie’s CEO, John Foraker, defended the sale of the Berkeley, Calif.-based maker of natural and organic pastas, meals and snacks:
“We felt that is was a really great time to partner up with somebody like General Mills because our mission is really making products like ours available to a much, much broader set of consumers.”
“Somebody like General Mills”?
As in “somebody” who spent $2.1 million to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California (Prop 37, in 2012) and Washington State (I-522 in 2013)?
As in “somebody” who belongs to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which not only has spent millions to defeat GMO labeling laws, but also sued the state of Vermont for passing a GMO labeling bill? And helped draft a bill in Congress that, if passed, will deny states the right to pass GMO labeling laws?
As in “somebody” whose shareholders voted overwhelmingly to continue to use genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the company’s food products?
Think it’s time to add Annie’s to the Traitor Boycott list?
ACTION ALERT
The Answer to Superweeds: Superpoisons
The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has an answer for superweeds—and it’s called super poisons.
Ignoring the public outcry and pleas by saner members of Congress, the USDA last week approved Dow’s new corn and soy crops, genetically engineered to withstand not one, but two poisons—a super-toxic, super-poison comprised of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and Dow’s 2,4-D, made with an ingredient that was used in the Vietnam-era Agent Orange herbicide.
Now that the USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have both signed off on the crops, there’s only one thing standing between you and the unleashing of 200 percent – 600 percent more 2,4-D into the environment: approval by the EPA of the herbicide itself, Dow’s Enlist Duo.
According to Food & Water Watch: “Because 2,4-D is prone to drifting away from the field where it is applied, increased use of the herbicide will put grapes, tomatoes and all other specialty crops that are not engineered to withstand exposure to 2,4-D at risk.”
Not to mention the risk it will pose to humans, including children and farm workers.
But hey, Dow stands to rake in another $1 billion in sales from its “Deadly Duo” Enlist crops and poisons.
TAKE ACTION: Tell the EPA: Stop Dow’s Deadly Duo of Agent Orange and Roundup Herbicides
ACTION ALERT
Brazen Bee-Killer
Talk about brazen.
Despite the mounting evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides are responsible for the dramatic decline in honeybees . . . despite the fact that the European Union, based on the science, declared a two-year moratorium on neonicotinoids . . . despite the fact that beekeepers in Canada are suing Bayer and Syngenta over the destruction of their bee colonies . . . Syngenta wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to let it spray even more of its neonicotinoid pesticide ingredient, thiamethoxam on alfalfa, corn and wheat crops in the U.S.
In a petition filed in August, but not published on the Federal Register until September 5, Syngenta, one of the world’s top three manufacturers of bee-killing pesticides, asked the EPA to pass an increase of 4.9 parts-per-million (ppm) of thiamethoxan. The current legal allowable level is 0.1ppm—Syngenta wants it increased to 5.0ppm.
Syngenta’s thiamethoxan is currently used primarily as a seed treatment. The company wants the EPA to raise the allowed limits so the toxin can be sprayed widely on crop leaves.
Syngenta, along with Bayer and Monsanto, have launched an aggressive public relations campaign that paints the pesticide-makers as “concerned” about the health of bees, and actively working to protect them. The campaign aims to divert attention from neonics and other poisons, to possible other causes of bee population declines, including varro mites and climate change.
We’re not buyin’ it. The OCA has joined 16 other groups in signing a letter to the EPA asking for stricter review of neonics.
Meanwhile, please tell the EPA to reject Syngenta’s request to spray more bee-killing neonics.
SUPPORT OCA & OCF
Ruin Is Forever
"If you are dead, you cannot mount a comeback. If all life on Earth were destroyed by, say, a large comet impact, there would be no revival. Ruin is forever.” – Kurt Cobb, Resource Insights
Last week, the USDA approved two of the most dangerous new GMO corn and soy crops, under the Dow Enlist brand name.
Now, the EPA appears ready to sign off on the deadly herbicide developed for use on the crops—an herbicide concocted from a combination of Monsanto’s Roundup and Dow’s 2,4-D “Agent Orange.” If the agency approves this “Deadly Duo,” it will trigger a 25-fold increase in the use of 2,4-D.
It’s enough to keep you up at night.
And all the more reason to stop the madness.
The battle to label foods containing GMOs has always been about shutting down not only the production of frankenfoods, but the endless, reckless, ever-escalating dumping of poisons onto our soil, into our water and on our food.
There are two key GMO labeling battlegrounds right now: Oregon and Colorado. They need your help.
We all need these wins. Because ruin is forever.
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)
VIDEO OF THE WEEK
A Talking Television?
Let the games begin.
Both sides in Oregon’s GMO labeling law battle have launched television ads to persuade voters to vote YES—or NO—on Measure 92, a bill to require labeling of foods that contain GMOs.
In our corner, we have Michael Hansen, senior scientist with the Consumers Union, who explains that Measure 92 won’t increase food costs; and Oregon farmers Steve and Jared, who explain that Measure 92 will help consumers tell the difference between foods they grow traditionally, and foods genetically engineered in a lab. They also point out that hundreds of Oregon farmers support Measure 92.
And in the opposite corner? We have family farmer Matt Frketich, who says Measure 92 “contains a bunch of complex and costly regulations that don’t exist in any other state;” Katie Fast, another Oregon farmer who says she’s never seen anything that would hurt farmers as much as Measure 92; and a talking television warning that Measure 92 is “deeply flawed.”
Which of these ads would sway you?
Watch the YES on 92 videos here and here
Watch the NO on 92 video here, here and here
LITTLE BYTES
Essential Reading for the Week
Study: Conflicts of Interest Are Rampant among FDA Advisors
Your Voice Is Needed to Keep Organic Strong
Want to Find out Where Your Fruit Was Grown? Good Luck
FDA, Flooded with Protests, Revises Food Safety Rules
Factory Farming Is the Overlooked Enemy of a Healthy Environment