SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 17 2013, 11:08am EDT
Contact:
Katherine Paul, 207.653.3090; or Alexis Baden-Mayer, alexis@organicconsumers.org, 202-744-0853
OCA Calls on Congress to Reject King Amendment and Any Other Farm Bill Riders That Would Preempt State GMO Labeling Laws
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today called on all members of Congress to reject the King Amendment and any other amendments or riders to the 2013 Farm Bill that would take away states' rights to enact laws requiring the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
FINLAND, Minn.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today called on all members of Congress to reject the King Amendment and any other amendments or riders to the 2013 Farm Bill that would take away states' rights to enact laws requiring the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The OCA also launched a national petition https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-pass-a?source=c.url&r_by... asking consumers to tell their Congress members that if they pass a Farm Bill with the King Amendment, or other similar riders or amendments, their constituents will vote - or throw - them out of office.
"If the King Amendment survives, and is included in the 2013 Farm Bill, it will wipe out more than 150 state laws governing agriculture, food and food safety," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the OCA. "The biotech industry knows that it's only a matter of time before Washington State, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and other states pass GMO labeling laws. Rather than fight this battle in every state, Monsanto is trying to manipulate Congress to pass a Farm Bill that will wipe out citizens' rights to state laws intended to protect their health and safety."
The King Amendment, inserted into the Farm Bill under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee on Wednesday, May 15. IThe amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California. But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law.
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) testified on May 15 against the King Amendment. He said:
"I oppose the King Amendment because the amendment takes away important authorities from the states and gives them exclusively to the federal government. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution firmly establishes states' rights and many states represented by members of the House Agriculture Committee use their state sovereignty to enact laws that protect their citizens from invasive pests, livestock diseases, maintain quality standards for dairy products, ensure food safety and unadulterated seed products. While this list is by no means exhaustive, even a cursory look at state laws regulating agriculture reveals that laws in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin and California, will potentially be nullified by the King Amendment."
Sources in Washington D.C. have told the OCA that even if the King Amendment doesn't make it into the Senate version of the Farm Bill, Monsanto is lobbying its Congressional allies for other measures that would accomplish the preemption or nullification of any state GMO labeling law.
Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have admitted privately that they've "lost the battle" to stop GE food labeling at the state level, now that states are aggressively moving forward on labeling laws. On May 14, Maine's House Ag Committee passed a GMO labeling law. On May 10, the Vermont House passed a labeling bill, 99-42, despite massive lobbying by Monsanto and threats to sue the state. And though Monsanto won a razor-thin victory (51 percent to 49 percent) in a costly, hard fought California GMO labeling ballot initiative last November, biotech and Big Food now realize that Washington State voters will likely pass I-522, an upcoming ballot initiative to label GE foods, on November 5.
"If Monsanto can't stop states from passing laws, then the next step is a national preemptive measure," Cummins said. "And all signs point to just such a power grab."
Earlier this year, Monsanto slipped its extremely unpopular "Monsanto Protection Act," an act that gives biotech immunity from federal prosecution for planting illegally approved GE crops, into the 2013 Federal Appropriations Bill. During the June 2012 Farm Bill debate, 73 U.S. Senators voted against the right of states to pass mandatory GE food labeling laws. Emboldened by these votes, and now the House Ag Committee's vote on the King Amendment, Monsanto has every reason to believe Congress would support a potential nullification of states' rights to label.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
LATEST NEWS
US-Israeli War on Iran Sparks 'Largest Supply Disruption in History of Global Oil Market': IEA
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale," said the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Mar 12, 2026
The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its reverberating impacts across the region have sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market," with flows of crude and other fossil fuel products through the Strait of Hormuz plummeting and Gulf nations slashing production as they run out of storage space.
The agency noted in its monthly report on the state of the global oil market that "oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran on 28 February," pointing to "disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," which have "sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl."
The IEA's report came a day after the agency's 32 member nations—including the US—agreed unanimously to release a total of 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to "address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” said the agency's executive director, Fatih Birol.
The IEA assessment on Thursday came as oil prices surged again as Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. An estimated 20% of the world's oil passes through the route each year.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq—which has among the largest confirmed reserves of crude oil in the world—suspended all of its oil terminal operations after two vessels were attacked off the nation's coast. NPR reported that Iran "took responsibility for attacking one of the tankers, which it said was owned by the US."
The US and Israel have also bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, choking Tehran with black smoke and spraying toxic rain that prompted warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"The black rain and the acidic rain coming with it is indeed a danger for the population, respiratory mainly," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva earlier this week.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said Wednesay that "the potential for vast, predictable, and devastating civilian harm arising from strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including uncontrolled deadly fires, major disruptions to essential services, environmental damage, and severe long-term health risks for millions, means there is a substantial risk such attacks would violate international humanitarian law and in some cases could amount to war crimes."
“Regardless of whether a military objective is cited to justify targeting energy infrastructure, under international humanitarian law all parties have a clear obligation to take all feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects," said Morayef. "This includes any foreseeable knock-on, indirect adverse effects on civilians’ life and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
One-Third of Americans Skipped Meals or Cut Back on Spending to Afford Healthcare in 2025
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
Mar 12, 2026
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With No Mention of US-Israeli Aggression, UN Security Council Condemns Iranian Retaliation
"The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor," said Iran's ambassador to the UN.
Mar 12, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations without denouncing—or even mentioning—the illegal US and Israeli bombing campaign that started the war, which has hurled the region into conflict and destabilized the global economy.
The resolution, sponsored by council member and US ally Bahrain, "condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," nations that host US military bases. The text calls Iranian strikes "a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security," but contains no mention of the US or Israel, nations that have been accused of grave war crimes.
The council adopted Bahrain's measure by a vote of 13-0, with two abstentions—China and Russia. Both nations have veto power but declined to use it. Neither Iran nor Israel is currently a member of the Security Council.
The UN body also voted on a competing resolution, sponsored by Russia, that would have implored "all parties"—without naming any of them—to stop their military operations and avoid escalating the conflict. The resolution did not receive the nine votes necessary for adoption, with the US and Latvia voting against it and Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Greece, Liberia, Panama, and the United Kingdom abstaining.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the UN, said the body's adoption of Bahrain's resolution marks "a serious setback to the council’s credibility and leaves a lasting stain on its record."
"Today’s action represents a blatant misuse of the Security Council’s mandate in pursuit of the political agendas of certain members," said Iravani. "The very state responsible for this brutal war of aggression against my country—the regime of the United States—sits on the other side of this chamber as president of the council, abusing its position while obstructing every effort to bring an end to this barbaric war against the Iranian people and preventing the Council from fulfilling its Charter-based responsibilities."
"This resolution is a manifest injustice against my country, the main victim of a clear act of aggression. It distorts the realities on the ground and deliberately ignores the root causes of the current crisis," he continued. "The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor. It rewards the regimes of the United States and Israel, which have violated the UN Charter and committed acts of aggression. In doing so, it establishes impunity and sends a wrong message to the international community—emboldening the aggressors to commit further crimes."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them."
Ahead of the vote on Bahrain's resolution, which accuses Iran of "deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects," Iravani said US-Israeli bombing has killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iran and destroyed nearly 10,000 civilian structures across the country, including around 8,000 homes and dozens of schools and healthcare facilities.
Earlier on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has reached the preliminary conclusion that US forces were responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian elementary school, an attack that killed around 175 people—mostly young children.
DAWN, a nonprofit that supports human rights and democracy in the Middle East, said Wednesday that "mounting evidence" shows US and Israeli forces "have committed multiple war crimes" in Iran and Lebanon—which is facing a rapidly worsening humanitarian disaster due to Israeli attacks.
"In mere days, US and Israel forces have launched a war of choice, killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, bombed scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots, and dropped white phosphorus on civilian communities," Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said in a statement. "The international community's failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era in which civilians across the globe are at risk."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them," said Shakir. "Governments unwilling to invoke international law when their allies commit crimes have no credibility when they invoke it against rivals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular