Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto
"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." -- Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."
In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM
calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the
biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal
regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require
pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges
have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of
Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a
farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to
Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely
guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."
Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?
According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.
WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.
From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.
Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs
The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.
Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."
Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.
Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud
Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."
Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.
Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.
The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market
There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.
Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/
To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm
And please stay tuned to Organic Bytes for the latest developments in our campaigns.
Power to the People! Not the Corporations!
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

118 Comments so far
Show AllNOT TRUE!!!!!
i'm tired of these viral hoaxes that serve to undermine everyone's understanding of the organic standards.
PLEASE do some basic research before flinging such falsity further into the virtual world! It frankly only serves Monsanto and their corporate industrialist allies for everyone to believe lies like this.
Neotame is NOT allowed as a certified organic ingredient. i trust the Cornucopia Institute over the internet rumor mill:
*******************************************************************
Cornucopia News
Neotame: Threat to Organics Sponsored by Monsanto or Internet Hoax?
January 6, 2011
We have received several inquiries about the artificial sweetener Neotame, and the Internet rumor that this synthetic additive is allowed in certified organic foods. Neotame, as a synthetic additive, is not allowed in organic foods, contrary to the Internet rumor.
None of the bloggers who perpetuate this anti-organic myth reference primary sources to substantiate their claims. As their sources, they reference one another instead of going to the source – such as the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Food and Drug Administration indeed considers Neotame to be a direct food additive (21 CFR 172.829), but this does not mean that it can be added to organic foods. Organic foods cannot contain synthetic additives, unless these additives have been petitioned and approved to appear on the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances (7 CFR 205.605). Emily Brown Rosen, Standards Specialist at the USDA’s National Organic Program, writes about neotame: “For organic food, all additives must appear on the National List.” Neotame has never been petitioned or approved for inclusion on the National List, and therefore cannot legally be added to organic foods.
We see no evidence, and see no reason to suspect, that any organic certifying agents would allow organic food manufacturers to violate the federal standards by adding this synthetic sweetener.
Moreover, as a direct food additive, neotame must be listed on the ingredients label, contrary to suggestions that this could be added to food in a stealth-like manner (21 CFR 101.100). We have not seen any evidence to suggest that neotame is being added covertly to organic foods. Not only would organic manufacturers be breaking the law by adding this synthetic sweetener to organic foods, they would also be breaking the law by not including Neotame on the ingredient label.
Charlotte Vallaeys
Farm and Food Policy Analyst
The Cornucopia Institute
http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/01/neotame-threat-to-organics-sponsored-by-monsanto-or-internet-hoax/
Good work, webwalk.
Excuse me, but I don't claim to be the final authority on every hoax that's out there.
I am also not ready to accept at face value the first 'institute' that claims the latest encroachment of our rights, standards, and ideals is simply another hoax. From every corner, standards of living and health are being chiseled away by the mega-corporatist agenda.
So, before you start attacking the messenger and claiming I'm a unwitting agent of Monsanto, perhaps you can simply clarify for the group why you think you have better information, and you can do your part to correct the record. That is what is necessary, not railing against someone who is simply trying to disseminate helpful information that may not have otherwise had a chance of being heard.
Yes, you did post what you thought was a correction, but as far as I understand it, you don't have the full story here. Neotame will not be added directly to Organic foods, but is added to the diet fed to supposedly Organically raised cattle and other ruminants. The ingredient is meant as a sweetener/nutritional additive to substitute for more expensive molasses.
re: "We have not seen any evidence to suggest that neotame is being added covertly to organic foods. Not only would organic manufacturers be breaking the law by adding this synthetic sweetener to organic foods, they would also be breaking the law by not including Neotame on the ingredient label."
I will do more research when I have the time, but honestly, I'm not a walking talking writing super-computer, with access to all facts out there. I share information to help warn people, and if I got something wrong, simply do your best to let me know. I did do 'my basic research', and if there is scant info out there about a subject that may be being deliberately suppressed, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, and neither should you.
Finally, I'm not wholly convinced, seeing that your information didn't address the molasses substitution in feed, that this is indeed a hoax. As I stated, I will research this more, but my sources and the info I did find did not appear to be false, or to be hiding a surreptitious agenda.
Sorry for my intemperate response, i am honestly sick of misinformation about organic standards that feed into people's perception that "they mean nothing anymore" so i react strongly.
Please look into Cornucopia, along with the OCA they are the leading grassroots organization fighting to uphold organic standards.
Please take some time to study the organic standards, they are not perfect but grassroots organizations like OCA and Cornucopia have successfully fought off repeated corporate assaults such as allowing GMOs, irradiation, sewage sludge, non-pastured dairy, etc. We need more people who are well-informed about the standards, and OCA and Cornucopia are good places to start.
Neotame is excluded from organics, so it is excluded from feed in organic beef and dairy production.
Thank you webwalk for the added info and resources to consider and review. If I have in any way added to the copius misinfo out there, to all my sincere apologies... I will ensure the due diligence is applied and report back on all/anything I find that may be a helpful addition to this subject, whichis after all, quite dear to my heart (and all the other organs of my body).
Cheers webwalk, I appreciate all of your posts.
Without enforcement, even the best standards and regulations are meaningless. Many of the critics you find vexatious are merely pointing out the woeful condition of the ostensible regulatory agencies and organizations. The truth is, meaningful regulation and oversight do not exist, ergo, the appellation, 'organic', is not necessarily to be trusted.
What i find vexatious are false assertions like this Neotame one, which serve to muddy the waters and encourage people to just give up. Fact-based criticism of organic standards and enforcement are a good thing, the truth always is.
i have not yet thrown the baby out with the bathwater, since there are so many hardworking farmers, consumers and activists fighting to uphold and fight back against corporate assaults on organic standards.
Some people don't always stop for stop signs and red lights. Does that lead you to believe law enforcement is in "woeful condition," or that the signs and lights are not "meaningful" and therefor "do not exist?" You say we can't "trust" the USDA Organic label. Well, we can't absolutely trust stop signs either. I'm sure you've been advised to "look both ways" before crossing the street.
It took many years of very hard work by thousands of dedicated people to obtain national organic standards, and the battle to uphold them is ongoing. Why would you disparage all of that with empty rhetoric?
I suggest you spend a few days reading the contents of the Cornucopia Institute, Organic Consumer Association and Center for Food Safety websites before you make such comments.
I was monitoring the National Organic Standards debate via Organic Gardening magazine. Even at the time, I was not sure this was a smart way to go because it concentrated power at the top. Hindsight has confirmed that suspicion. If I were you, I would not be so quick to defend that effort, which, at best, was misguided.
And I regularly check the Cornucopia Institute website to see "who owns organic".
I have to disagree. We have a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) which plays a primary role in developing the national organic standards.
"The current board is comprised of four farmers/growers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist, three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists, and one USDA accredited certifying agent who sit on various committees. Members come from all four U.S. regions."
Where do you get "concentrated power at the top" from this?
Prior to the USDA Organic standard there was a hodgepodge of standards and no one knew what "organic" really meant. Not farmers, not processors, not retailers and not consumers. Now everyone knows. Where the organic food industry was once tiny and it's future limited, it's now prospering and growing exponentially. This would not have happened without a national standard.
And the downside? Some growers and processors say they surpass the USDA Organic standard. Others say the rules are too onerous. Great! At least we know what the rules are, and everyone is on a level playing field.
We also have superior information and a better rule because all the scientific, financial and human resources assembled by NOSB would not have otherwise been available.
More people eating healthy food, more farmers engaging in Earth-friendly practices, healthier farm families and farm animals ... that's all to the good. As to big business buying smaller organic companies, that can be OK as long as they abide by the USDA Organic rules. That's what can get us to 100% organic agriculture and food more quickly.
As Stonyfield's Gary Hirshberg said in Food, Inc., "with every shipment of Stonyfield organic yogurt to Walmart, millions of tons of pesticides are kept off the Earth."
Of course some unscrupulous companies try to cheat, USDA is subject to political pressures and enforcement is imperfect, but that's where watchdog organizations are filling the gap. e.g. we now have a pasturing rule for organic dairy cows, thanks to tireless efforts of Cornucopia Institute and other defenders of national organic standards.
Imagine how impotent we would be in the fight with Monsanto today if not for the strength of the organic industry, the NGOs, the NOSB and the growing numbers of organic consumers?
Once upon a time U.S. rivers were so polluted that some caught fire. Then we passed environmental laws and created the EPA. Would you also argue that creating EPA was "misguided" because of the shortcomings of EPA rules and enforcement?
Up until the 1960s, most food grown and distributed was organic and no labels were needed. It was factory farming and forcing corn feed and anti-biotics against animals that started this whole mess and put small farmers and high quality food out of business. The organic industries may be good at offering healthy alternatives but even they are questionable on the standards. For example, the so-called "organic milk" label on some brands is nowhere as truly organic as grassfed milk. On certain processed foods too, I find it rather odd to be finding "USDA organic" labels on them. I am not saying that we should do away with organic labels. However, we can no longer be sure of what is truly organic and what is label-only "organic" until we research deep on the products. As for the rules and regulations, too many of them are in favor of Big Agri and against most local growers and small farmers. As for the EPA, that agency has long been neutered to the point of being a lapdog for the crony polluting corporations just like USDA has ended up being a lapdog to Big Agri and allowing them to ruin the good name of the word "organic". I say get rid of the corporate subsidies and allow small to compete with big. That will save the taxpayers millions and billions, help heal the environment, and reduce some of our health care costs.
What else do you call the ability of USDA Secretary to declare GE alfalfa not only legal but to absolve Monsanto from responsibility if their product contaminates a field and destroys a business/livelihood except concentrated power at the top? If the NOSB can't stop something like this, they are a paper tiger. And Jennifer is right, people don't eat healthy food because of the USDA, farmers grow organically because the demand is there and they are committed or they can make more money or both. And I see much unhealthy food labelled organic.
The EPA has been around much longer than organic standards. I would argue that in the 70's some good was done. USDA, FDA, and to some degree EPA are not or are no longer doing the job they were intended to do and should be drastically overhauled and their power vastly reduced. The real question is why is putting poison into our food and water supplies OK?
Monsanto runs the show. How could it be worse?
"Now everyone knows" Don't make me laugh. I doubt that one person in 100 knows that Horizon Dairy is Dean Foods. Maybe one in a thousand knows that for years they ignored organic standards and that after a 3 yr investigation USDA said they had to change their practices but didn't take away their certification because they promised to change.
If it were not for gov't subsidies people would not have such cheap garbage to eat.
There's crime in the streets, so let's disband the police. "How could it be worse?" "They're a paper tiger." "The real question is why is murder and rape OK?" What a brilliant train of thought. You really don't know what you are talking about. But that's OK. We're going push for Truth-in-Labeling, win the struggle against futility-mongering, ignorance and corporatist rhetoric, and build on our twenty years of success in expanding organic agriculture and access to healthy food for everyone, in spite of your efforts to the contrary.
Truth-in-labeling would be wonderful.
Almost no one in society says murder and rape is OK including the gov't. In the case of agricultural poisons, we have collectively said they are OK since they were developed. They are "approved" by gov't. Bill Clinton "approved" GMOs 15 years ago. There has never been any effort to ban them, except a few individual, obvious, toxins for which they've been unable to concoct a "gray area".
You are insulting for no apparent reason unless you are so wedded to your beliefs that an objective critique becomes a personal attack. My efforts have been to grow, buy and eat organic/naturally raised as much as has been available since 1975.
There is no rational basis for any "standards," that is why it drags on and on. It is a fantasy, an imaginary ideal that then looks for facts to support it.
You cannot set standards for a fantasy. Organic merely means "the better people" and "going natural." Neither of those can be measured or regulated.
In short: bullshit.
If only the situation was as innocuous as some stop sign violation.
Perhaps a more apt analogous comparison would be with the SEC oversight of Wall Street, or better yet, the Justice Department's enforcement of antitrust statutes? We all can see how well that is working out. Speaking of which, have you any idea of the oligarchical cabal that now dominates our food supply, organic and otherwise?
Most of the familiar brands that have become associated with organic products are now owned or controlled by the same transnational corporations that reign over the other sectors of our food supply.
Additionally, there is no uniformity in organic standards throughout the various states, let alone those that might prevail in other nations around the globe.
Even at that, existing statues are only as good as the enforcement behind them, and in the United States today that leaves something to be desired.
I live in a major agricultural region. On a daily basis I witness what goes on in the area, and I assure you my observations are something more than mere 'empty rhetoric'.
"I live in a major agricultural region. On a daily basis I witness what goes on in the area..." You are witnessing what, specifically? If you know something, tell us who, where and what.
Thank you non placet and cassandra for setting the record and reality straight. "Naturally" doesn't get it. He bases his wild assertions on polling and Big Agri standards. I have run into messy arguments with him once or twice before. He would cite a poll supposedly showing that the vast majority of Americans believe in this or that socialist idea and then give us all his lame brain "shut up and call and email" lectures. It wouldn't matter to him that most pols in Washington are corrupt beyond repair. It's our fault for not "putting enough pressure" on them according to "Naturally". As I read through the comments, I notice his imbecilic talk about Americans eating healthier when reality proves otherwise. His other imbecilic comment on it being "OK" for Big Agri to crush small family farms as long as they abide by "USDA standards" is also irritating. The USDA has been systematically weakened to the point to where their "regulations" are ineffective against Monsanto, ADM, Cargill,etc... but at the same time persecuting the remaining small farmers and local growers. Hence, organic standards has weakened to the point where it is getting more difficult to tell the difference between organic and inorganic.
P.S.: I support non-profit small businesses that specialize in the truly organic. I do not support "Naturally's" idea of allowing the word "organic" to be misused for business profiteering and then calling it "progress".
No one is blaming anyone, nor saying that they have not worked hard.
Rather I am saying that what they have been doing has not worked. As someone who wants what they are doing to work, why is that not if interest to you?
The Cornucopia Institute and Organic Consumer Association are deeply invested in this, and are in serious denial. That does not mean they are bad people, does not mean they haven't worked hard, etc. Still, they have failed and may be doing more damage than good at this point.
It is not the organic ideals or standards that are wrong, it is the approach - privatization and reliance on consumer choice, building donations and grant money on fear-mongering, failing to accurately distinguish between friend and foe, total ignorance of the farm communities and infrastructure, failure to correctly analyze and go after the root cause - corporate domination of the food supply, and failure to support the public agriculture infrastructure.
Your analogy is weak. with organic we have a situation where you can't rely on anyone to EVER stop at a stop sign or stay on their own side of the road. The "organic" label - and that is what the groups you cite have been punishing for a long time now: that everyone needs to "buy the organic label" - is at best completely meaningless, and more often is the exact opposite of what people have been trained to expect from it.
95% of the organic growers in the country - a tiny, tiny fraction of farms here, despite higher prices for the produce, despite public demand, despite decades of work by the groups you cite - gross less than $15,000 a year. That is gardening, not farming. Yet there is 100,000 times as much food on the shelf labeled "organic" as could be produced by those gardens. Where is it coming from? What is it? It is produce from other countries that the corporations are bringing into the country, with no certification - hell we don't even know where it comes from since the corporations refuse to label it accurately and sell it through dummy companies. Virtually none of this food is inspected once it gets here. The "organic" label has become a way for corporations to charge a premium price while evading inspections and regulations - let alone certification.
Are those thousands of dedicated people dedicated to the truth? Dedicated to results in the real world? Or are they only dedicated to posing as being morally superior to everyone else?
After looking into this, here's what I find:
There are wide number of articles that come up when I type in "Sweetos" "USDA Organic". If this is a hoax, why are so many sites – that at least on the surface have the appearance of being legitimate – putting this article forward?
There are a number of threads with responders who posted the exact same excerpt webwalk posted, but in every single response, there has been no other verifiable denials other than the one coming from the Cornicopia Institute, which states clearly that 'Neotame' is not allowed under the USDA Organic standard, but never clearly states specifically that 'Sweetos' is not.
Therefore my conclusion is that further substantiation must be brought forward in order to get the 'low-down' on this.
Again, why are there SO MANY sites now disseminating this article and the information in it? Are they all just victims of a 'viral internet hoax'? That would be a pretty good hoax, in which case, why isn't there someone investigating the source of this widely spread, professionally orchestrated 'hit-job'?
There is something still not being brought out here. I would like a more definitive statement claiming that the product 'Sweetos' is not *anywhere allowed to enter the food chain* which may eventually display the label USDA Organic.
I have no personal stake in this. I just want to know and clarify this for the sake of knowing.
Why in Hell does Humanity continue to HAVE a ruthless, evil, anti-Human entity like Monsanto anyway? Has it EVER done ANYTHING edifying for our biological specie or the Earth?
Boycott the bastards
ezeflyer, a boycott would be great if it was based on fact. Unfortunately, there's little fact in Ronnie's story. The exception being that the USDA approved the sale of GE Alfalfa.
None of the three companies mentioned surrendered anything to Monsanto. The USDA held all the cards and had already taken banning GE Alfalfa off the table. Ronnie and everyone that believes his story gives these three companies far too much credit if you think they had the power to stop this decision. They didn't.
Ask yourself this question, why would three companies who live and breath organic, want to make a deal with Monsanto and risk their very existence?
You should go read the stories over at the non-GMO Project (http://tinyurl.com/63smdhn, as well as the statements from WFM, SF, and OV. http://www.organicvalley.coop/community/organicsense/article/article/gm-alfalfa-whats-happening-now/, https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150128138050042&id=20430091901&ref=mf,http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/
It's not about whether "they had the power to stop this decision."
It's about, so then what do you do, when you DON'T have any such power?
You are disempowered in a corporatist economy. Do you "sit at the table" and beg for crumbs that you do not get, because you are "realistic"?
We got NOTHING. The USDA gave EVERYTHING to Monsanto. Should we have been "at the table" for that?
Or should we be organizing resistance? You are free to blame Cummins for this, but Cummins is saying WE HAVE NO PLACE AT THAT TABLE.
USDA chief Vilsack won "governor of the year" from the biotech industry. He was taking money from Monsanto. Obama (oh you bet) certainly knew this when he appointed Vilsack as Ag chief. We know who is running this country, and it is not the organic sector of agriculture or retail business.
So what does the organic sector do? Sit at the table? Why? For what benefit? Are we not better off organizing a fight-back? Resisting? Pledging that NO WAY IN HELL will we "realistically" accept co-existence with GMO ag and Monsanto? And beg for crumbs at the table? And get the shaft, exactly as they have, with UNCONDITIONAL deregulation of GMO alfalfa, setting the new standard for biotech crops from now on? WAKE UP.
"Step away from the table." That is Cummins' point. Are you arguing that now, even now, after having Vilsack and Monsanto and Obama lie to us and screw us and give us nothing, that we should meekly return to that table, and start negotiating on "co-existence" with the NEXT big biotech sell-out? What? What future do you see? What are you fighting for?
And let me be clear: My co-op is a FOUNDING MEMBER of the Non-GMO Project. We SUPPORT testing and certification of GMO-free products. But that is only half the story.
The only reason the Non-GMO Project exists is that the US government is SOLD OUT to the corporate sector, and labeling of GMO products is FORBIDDEN. Monsanto gets their shills appointed to the National Organic Standards Board, not the other way around.
So as a desperation measure, we set up our own independent testing and certification of GMO-free products, to try to shoehorn our own "labeling" into the consumer marketplace.
In that circumstance, we expect to negotiate with the USDA over their next sell-out to Monsanto? Really? Who is being "realistic" here? In my book, Cummins is the realistic one. We need a movement of resistance to corporatist sell-out GMO government. It is a FOOL'S GAME to imagine you can negotiate in these circumstances.
Boycott Whole Foods, Organic Valley and Stonyfield...
power to the buyers, the people, the consumers. Since so many so-called organic companies have sold out to whorporate, who's surprised that WF would go whorporate...?
BTW, everywhere there is a whole foods store, there is a co-op near by struggling to survive, or doing great cause the public is smart...AnnArbor being one..so please people, support your co-ops and farm markets, grow your own and order your seeds from reliable places like Seed Savers. Don't be a victim of the gmo or whorporate food rape.
i'm not boycotting OV or Stonyfield, they've done too much for too many independent small organic dairy operations. OV is a co-op of thousands of independent producers, Stonyfield buys from OV farmers. i'm not throwing that baby out with this bath water.
i've got a letter in my hand from two weeks ago from my own association, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, that says we must painfully accept "coexistence" with GMO alfalfa and support the "at the table" effort to win concessions (that blew up in their faces). Should we boycott co-ops too? If so, then what? A boycott is a targeted campaign with strategy, goals, and demands. Organizing an effective boycott means more than just saying "boycott!" (That said, there are a hundred good reasons to avoid WF.)
i'll be at an organic industry meeting in Portland OR next week. i'll report back on the internal state of things, whether there is any reassessment of the "at the table" concept by those who just got played, or a circling of the wagons. And whether there is a significant push to restore independence from the false "realism" of inside politics.
Publicly fund elections or pay for it in ways like this.
Notice that Stonyfield and Organic Valley were lumped with Whole Foods from the beginning but if you believe what the article says, why not contact them directly and get their response.
Stonyfield 1-800-PRO-COWS (776-2697)
Organic Valley 1-888-444-6455. Their site says voice mail is currently down as of 1/27, so I don't think you will be able to leave a message.
Based upon the conversations I have had, I don't think they deserve the loaded rhetoric that Whole Foods and Monsanto no doubt do indeed deserve.
Empower yourselves by contacting them directly and expressing solidarity or outrage but be informed.
Organic Valley has posted a response to the OCA article. Click the Organic Valley link in the article you'll find the response and a forum with 239 comments on the Organic Valley website.
You will also find a link to their Facebook page with an updated response.
Unfortunately, I've posted my comment three times today asking for a straightforward response to the question: does Organic Valley support the campaign for a Truth-in-Labeling law, yes or no? So far, they have not posted my question. Nor have they mentioned Truth-in-Labeling in any of their messaging about this issue. I am very troubled by this.
I have government reps I worked to get elected that won't give me a response the same day. Hell, they'll wait a week, longer or never respond, none too pleased about that either. It's not like these companies don't get pushback too when they want to label their products non-contaminated.
We can pressure the good corporations out there to put up more of a fight and I do believe it needs to be clear who is working against us and who isn't. I don't get that from this article, except for the worst that most everyone here already accepts are irresponsible.
I hope everyone who has time can increase the pressure. A little pressure from each of us can make a difference.
239 comments on the GM alfalfa issue have been posted on the Organic Valley site in the past two days. Some spoke in support of Truth-in-Labeling. Organic Valley has been silent on the issue so far. My comment, containing the direct question to Organic Valley about Truth-in-Labeling (which i posted three times today) has not appeared.
Is Organic Valley sincere in it's statements that they will do everything they can to oppose GM crops and food? If they are, why don't they come out in support of Truth-in-Labeling? This is the issue they must address.
I agree, Naturally!
Organic Valley and Stonyfield farms are defending themselves hardcore on this issue. though I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, i won't unless they declare their stance on Truth-in-labelling.
Label the Betrayers.
For this betrayal all concerned folks could initiate their own labeling program on the offenders.
It's easy to make your own labels these days for said corporate organic products.
Simple slogans posted on their products could cost them millions.
A few examples:
Stoneyfield has Betrayed Organic Farmers.
Organic Valley Supports GMO-Monsanto.
Holy Foods is Sleeping with Monsanto.
etc.
Wheatpasted paper flyers near every hole food markets would suffice too if one doesn't want to frequent inside.
Boycotts with consumer education posted on every betrayers product or wfm will make them take notice.
Either Monsanto, DuPont and Cargill will survive or the biosphere will. We can't have both.
You cannot pressure corporations or politicians. There are not "good" and "bad" corporations, any more than there were "good" and "bad" slave owners. The system is the problem.
All corporations (the wealthy) are working against us (the working class) just as all slave owners were working against all slaves.
Corporations prosper, and the investors are rewarded, to the exact degree that they successfully crush us. That is the only way to "win" the game.
I was writing about this a year before the author did, but there was almost nobody to listen: http://senatorwagner.com/2010/02/monsanto-took-over-nofa-vt-convention/ That was because most of you Left folks were still worshipping the ground that Obama walks upon. I was running for the state senate then and lost a lot of votes because I was willing to stand up, but I stuck to my guns. The next election is 2012.
Pressure on DC government goes nowhere because they are not accountable: Obama appointed Monsanto lobbyist & insider Vilsack to run the USDA: the corruption is that deep. Monsanto even owns the new ultraliberal governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin, who killed Vermont's GMO Labelling bill.
No. Vermont needs a divorce from this brutal, corrupt federal government. Because it has shown itself incapable of reform. Shumlin we will recall after he falls int disgrace over broken promises over the aged, leaking nuclear reactor, and the crash/burn of the bloated Democrat budget this year.
Good luck Robert if you are still thinking about going into politics. Everyone goes in thinking that they are going to change the system, but it invariably ends up changing them. It is truly a bulwark of bullshit and people are defecting from the electoral system in droves.
I just visited your campaign website, http://senatorwagner.com/ and liked what I read. Keep up the good work!
Your complaint about Governor Shumlin is a little misleading though. It appears he voted against a GMO labeling bill in 2000 when he was a state senator, he didn't "kill" the bill as governor.
I'd like to know more about the Bernie Sanders incident described in the document you linked.
I absolutely agree with you about Obama and Vilsack. I was one of a few "Left folks" who spoke out against his candidacy as loudly as possible (and with specific facts) here on CD. His presidency has been a disaster in so many ways.
I assume you now support the national Truth-in-Labeling campaign spearheaded by OCA, and Rep. Kucinich's bill?
you expected anything else from the capitalist corporates?
shame is squarely on YOU.
Always looking to blame. Always uncompassionate to those who are just now learning what is really going on. You're the teacher that makes asking questions a bad thing. For someone who seems to know so much, you sure are labeled incorrectly yourself, curious.
"You're the teacher that makes asking questions a bad thing."
That is a chronic problem, isn't it? Hope I don't do that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention Whitewashed Cherokee.
Vilsack is a corporate whore and a total asshole. There is no candy coating it. The damage to the web of life, from releasing more GMOs into the environment, will become apparent soon enough.
I boycott Whole Paycheck already, hopefully more people will follow suit. I'd love to see them go down.
I'm not ready to roll over. I swear I'll starve, before I start eating frankenfoods! This is a good front where the left can make a stand. Support your local farmers' market and co-ops. Grow a little bit of your own food on a small plot in your yard, or in five gallon self-watering buckets on your balconies, start community gardens in abandoned lots, consume less and don't spend another cent towards foods produced by industrial methods. It's a small act of non-cooperation. Find more ways to not cooperate or go along with the corporate system, and experience yourself becoming more free.
The more we turn away from this system the freer we will feel and the better off every human being will be. F!@k Whole Foods! ...Dictating to us that we have to "coexist" with Monsanto. Can anyone believe that? We can no longer depend on any corporation for our existence. When we free ourselves to take more responsibility and action in our communities- subverting the system at every turn, when we can start building a new world in the shadow of this decrepit and useless system, and when we can start talking in terms that the corporations don't understand, but terms that reflect our values and make sense to us, that is when we have a movement and the beginning of a REVOLUTION.
NO COEXIST! NO MORE PLEADING FOR LEGITIMACY! DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM! POWER TO THE PEOPLE! FUCK WHOLE FOODS & FUCK MON-SAN-TO.
Call me when Mubarak resigns and the Egyptian Army invades Israel. That will get my attention! At present Monsanto presents a greater threat although I am breathlessly awaiting the solar maxima in 2012 and stocking up on SPF 10,000,000 sunscreen.
It's not nonsense. It is just another symptom of our demeaned and damaged world. GMOs can cross pollinate with "traditional" crops - crazy scary stuff. When facing rapidly rising food prices, drastic climate change and the end of oil-based agriculture, the choice of sustainable, heirloom seeds is important.
This is happening on a scale beyond what anyone anticipated. Genetic material from GMO crops is migrating much faster and farther then was thought possible. Crops are all derived from wild species, of course, and genetic material is being passed to wild plants.
GMO is being driven by the desire to control crops - as "intellectual property" - not to improve crops. That is the grounds upon which it must be fought. As scary as the "frankenfoods" idea may be, it is corporate control over food that should scare people more.
Thanks Coach,
It's not about genetic purity, it's about corporate ownership of the stuff of life, and the power that such ownership confers.
There are multiple unprecedented global crises coalescing.
Feel free to check off which ones pass muster with you.
You are making an extremely important point.
"It's about corporate ownership of the stuff of life, and the power that such ownership confers."
That is where the battle lines are drawn.
The "organic" concept is a meaningless tool for battling against that. This makes the opposition to corporate control over the food supply vulnerable to critics such as our friend up thread who calls it "nonsense." Organic is nonsense - easily smashed, easily co-opted by corporations, based on emotions, based on consumer choice and privatization models.
Corporate think tanks are controlling the organic movement - writing the scripts for the movement.
"Surrender to Monsanto?" That happened a long time ago. Virtually every liberal and progressive in the country supported Obama, as did every environmental and progressive group. Hell, the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama. That was logical and inevitable given the stance and direction of progressive politics.
What was one of the first things that president Obama did? He passed over dozens and dozens of excellent candidates for Secretary of Agriculture, and named the one person - the one and only person reasonably qualified for the job who was also in the pocket of Monsanto.
Now, in a familiar pattern, leading organic producers and suppliers are "partnering" with industry. They - as all other "winners" in this nightmare we call American society - need the bucks and the connections.
All of the leading environmental groups "partners" with BP a few years ago - "for a greener future" - and got lots of bucks from BP. Notice how they were all silent = missing in action - as BP destroyed the Gulf?
But we don't want to get too radical, do we? And we can challenge any and all left wing critics with a sneering "oh yeah, then what's YOUR plan? Hmmm?" People will keep promoting all of the same old weak and failed approaches -
"Start a garden!" (that will make Wall Street tremble)
"Save seeds!" (utter nonsense)
"Buy organic!" (completely counterproductive)
Check out the documentary "The Corporation".