USDA recently published regulations that provide better living conditions, including more access to the outdoors, for animals raised for organic meat and poultry, and for organic egg production. The regulations stand to improve the lives of millions of animals AND uphold the integrity of the USDA organic label.
Amazing news, right? Not so fast. This week, the Senate Appropriations Committee may consider an unacceptable policy rider that would block USDA from putting the new organic animal welfare regulations into effect.
As consumers who believe in the organic label and who care about the welfare of all animals, we need your help putting a stop to this appalling attempt to stonewall the USDA.
Help us ensure that the Senate Appropriations Committee DOES NOT block USDA in carrying out the new organic animal welfare regulations by calling them today.
I hadn’t heard of Rick Friday until he was fired by Farm News, despite the fact that Rick had been drawing his cartoons for the paper for 21 years. Most people probably hadn’t.
It was an honest depiction of what has happened to farming in America.
The corporations paying the big ad dollars over at Farm News didn’t like it, and the action was swift. After 21 years, Rick was fired.
When we shared the story on the site, it was breaking in other places, too, and his cartoons suddenly went viral. He was speaking truth to power, sharing the concerns of farmers not only in Iowa, but also around the world. His story was picked up by the New York Times and news outlets in the Netherlands.
The truth is so obvious.
Afterwards, I reached out to Rick, thanking him for his courage, and as I began to learn more about this man, I felt that others should hear his story, so I asked if we could share a bit more about him here.
Rick Friday is not only a hero to farmers around the country, but increasingly a hero to American families, too.
In his own words, “I am a fifth generation farmer, fourth generation on this century farm. It stops with me. My children have no interest, and why should they it is a hard life driven by a passion you can’t escape.
I was in big corporate management for half my life and when dad’s diagnosis of COPD handed him only 5 more years to live, I tossed the dress pants and pulled on a pair of bib overalls and had four of the best years of our lives together. He said to me after I told him I had an opportunity to be part of the corporation’s executive staff, “Sometimes you don’t get the biggest bang with a buck.” He was right and I would not give up those years for anything.”
When he shared this, I thought about how many people I’ve met who are not following in their father’s footsteps. Farming is stopping and not entering the sixth generation. We have countless 5th generation farmers, but very few are signing on to be the 6th.
So what has changed so dramatically in the last generation to drive out so many farmers?
The business model.
Twenty years ago, companies like Monsanto introduced genetically engineered seeds onto our farms. It changed farming, not only because of the increased applications of products like Roundup on Roundup Ready corn and seed, but it obligated farmers into paying licensing, trait and royalty fees. It created a new revenue stream for the corporations at the expense of the farmers.
Farmers, after five generations, could no longer save seeds. They had to purchase them with every new planting season. With the introduction of these genetically engineered seeds, farmers were locked into a business model their grandfathers hadn’t known. Monsanto and companies like it became the middle man and locked themselves into a revenue stream.
I asked Rick if he was concerned about it.
“There are people starving now,” he said. “Wait until 1% of the population controls the production of food for profits. I am worried.” It is why he is speaking out about these multinational corporations and the control they have over our food.
He is not the only one. Farmers are joining him, entire countries are joining him.
As a fifth generation farmer, Rick and his wife Juanita who he calls “The Great Juan” have raised five kids, two construction foremen, one realtor, one special needs teacher and one lawyer. They have nine grand kids that they call “The Sippy Cup Gang” (just love that) and one on the production line who will be with them in the fall.
In other words, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone as knowledgeable about the farm economy as Rick Friday.
Perhaps that is why he was fired after 21 years working for Farm News. He’s been there since this genetically engineered operating system was first introduced twenty years ago. He’s seen its impact on farmers.
The silver lining is that the very thing that Monsanto and the other companies were trying to create—the silencing of Rick Friday’s voice—resulted in a much larger audience for his work. Millions more saw his cartoons, farmers around the country and the world began speaking out.
So what is Rick doing now?
“I write an article each week for a paper, mostly about being married, living on the farm and all the stuff I do.”
Keep doing your stuff, Rick Friday. Your courage is contagious, because you are an American hero.
The Senate is dealing with the issue of GMO labeling again, with Monsanto pushing their “support” for GMO labeling with QR “smart codes” instead of plain English on the package.
Monsanto’s version of “support” would require every consumer to use a smart phone, an app and to scan every product that they are considering for purchase in order to learn whether or not the product contains genetically engineered ingredients. It’s bogus, as American food companies are already labeling genetically engineered ingredients on their packages overseas and beginning to do the same on their packages, in plain English, here in the United States (finally!).
The Monsanto bill is just more of the same: an attempt to cover up and hide their products from consumers who are demanding to know what is really in our foods. Watch the video then call your Senator at 1-877-796-1949 to say you OPPOSE these new efforts by Monsanto to limit our right to know what’s in our food.
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology has launched an investigation into the ‘mistaken’ release of a draft report by the U.S. EPA on the World’s most used herbicide, glyphosate.
The EPA ‘mistakenly’ published a draft report online on April 29 by the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC). The report stated that glyphosate is ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’, which is in direct contradiction to the World Health Organization cancer agency IARC’s much more comprehensive report, which stated in 2015 that glyphosate is a ”probable human carcinogen”.
An EPA assessment on the herbicide atrazine was also posted on the agency’s website on April 29 but subsequently taken down. The documents are available here. The assessment said atrazine was found to cause reproductive harm to birds and mammals.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Wednesday, committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, announced his committee is launching an investigation into the matter.
“…EPA’s removal of this report and the subsequent backtracking on its finality raises questions about the agency’s motivation in providing a fair assessment of glyphosate — an assessment based on the scientific analysis conducted by CARC,” Smith said in the letter.
“Furthermore, EPA’s apparent mishandling of this report may shed light on larger systemic problems occurring at the agency.”
Smith has asked EPA to provide “documents and communications” from January 1, 2015, to the present between agency personnel on the glyphosate assessment to the committee by May 18.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s ongoing risk assessment of the world’s most widely used herbicide is starting to generate more questions than answers. On Monday, it also generated a giant “oops” from the EPA.
On Friday, April 29, the EPA posted on its website a series of documents related to its long-awaited risk assessment for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and other weed-killing products sold around the world. The risk assessment started in 2009 and was supposed to conclude in 2015. But questions about whether or not glyphosate may cause cancer are dogging the agency’s review, and have slowed the process.
On Monday, after the contents of the documents started to generate questions from media, EPA yanked those documents from its website:
An agency spokeswoman said this:
“Glyphosate documents were inadvertently posted to the Agency’s docket. These documents have now been taken down because our assessment is not final. EPA has not completed our cancer review. We will look at the work of other governments as well as work by HHS’s Agricultural Health Study as we move to make a decision on glyphosate. Our assessment will be peer reviewed and completed by end of 2016.”
The EPA said it was “working through some important science issues on glyphosate, including residues of the chemical in human breast milk;” an “in-depth human incidents and epidemiology evaluation;” and a preliminary analysis of glyphosate toxicity to milkweed, a critical resource for the monarch butterfly.
Inadvertent or not, one of those documents posted and then withdrawn was a doozy, a heavy hammer that seeks to knock down worries about glyphosate ties to cancer. The agency released an Oct. 1, 2015 internal EPA memorandum from its cancer assessment review committee (CARC) that contradicts the March 2015 finding by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifying glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. EPA found instead that glyphosate is “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.”
The memorandum stated that the classification was based on “weight-of-evidence considerations.”
CARC said this:
“The epidemiological evidence at this time does not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors. There is also no evidence to support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the following non-solid tumors: leukemia, multiple myeloma, or Hodgkin lymphoma. The epidemiological evidence at this time is inconclusive for a causal or clear associative relationship between glyphosate and NHL. Multiple case-control studies and one prospective cohort study found no association; whereas, results from a small number of case-control studies (mostly in Sweden) did suggest an association.”
Monsanto touted and tweeted the release of the document, which follows the release by EPA of a different memorandum supporting the safety of glyphosate last June. The newest memo gives the company added evidence to defend itself against a mounting stack of lawsuits filed by agricultural workers and others alleging Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide gave them cancer.
“This is the EPA’s highest ranking for product safety—they also do nice job of explaining all of IARC’s mistakes,” Monsanto Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley said in a twitter posting.
Monsanto has been calling on EPA to defend glyphosate against the cancer claims since the IARC classification came out in March 2015. A March 23, 2015 EPA email string released as part of a Freedom of Information request details Monsanto’s efforts to get EPA to “correct” the record on glyphosate “as it relates to carcinogenicity.”
That memo updates estimates of glyphosate use on crops in top agricultural states, and provides annual average use estimates for the decade 2004-2013. Seventy crops are on the EPA list, ranging alphabetically from alfalfa and almonds to watermelons and wheat. Glyphosate used on soybean fields, on an annual basis, is pegged at 101.2 million pounds; with corn-related use at 63.5 million pounds. Both those crops are genetically engineered so they can be sprayed directly with glyphosate as farmers treat fields for weeds. Cotton and canola, also genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant, also have high use numbers. But notable glyphosate use is also seen with oranges (3.2 million lbs); sorghum (3 million lbs); almonds (2.1 million lbs); grapes, (1.5 million lbs); grapefruit and apples (400,000 lbs each); and a variety of fruits, vegetables and nuts.
Despite—or perhaps because of—the delays in issuing a final regulatory risk assessment on glyphosate, questions about the impact of the chemical on human health and the environment have been mounting. In addition to the lawsuits alleging glyphosate caused cancer in farm workers and others, private groups are scrambling to test a variety of food products for glyphosate residues.
On Friday a lawsuit with a new twist on glyphosate concerns was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. That suit, which seeks class action status, alleges that glyphosate residues found in Quaker Oats invalidates claims by the Quaker Oats Co. that its product is wholly natural. “Glyphosate is a synthetic biocide and probable human carcinogen, with additional health dangers rapidly becoming known,” the lawsuit states. “When a product purports to be ‘100% Natural,’ consumers not only are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be pesticide-free,” the lawsuit states.
Questions about glyphosate have become so prevalent that U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu wrote a letter to EPA officials in December requesting EPA scientists meet with a group of independent scientists to go over “troubling information” related to glyphosate. Lieu cited concerns that EPA is relying on Monsanto-backed data rather than independent, peer-reviewed research in assessing glyphosate. Sources close to the situation say that meeting has been scheduled for June 14, though both EPA and Lieu’s office declined to comment.
The EPA’s diligence on digging into glyphosate questions and concerns is encouraging to those who want to see a thorough risk assessment done. But the delay and the questionable actions with releasing documents and then withdrawing them from the public eye does not inspire confidence.
Indeed, in another curious move, the EPA on May 2 also issued a newly updated “registration review schedule.“ But while three dozen other chemical draft risk assessments are listed on the EPA website for release by the end of 2016, glyphosate was not included.
Meet Rick Friday, a cartoonist who was just fired for highlighting the fact that in 2015, the CEOs of Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, and John Deere made more money than 2,129 Iowa farmers
According to KCCI, Des Moines, Iowa, “Rick Friday has been giving farmers a voice and a laugh every Friday for two decades through his cartoons in Farm News.” But after publishing a popular cartoon last week, he was fired, for calling attention to how much the CEOs of Monsanto and Dupont are paid.
As he shared on his Facebook wall,
“Again, I fall hard in the best interest of large corporations. I am no longer the Editorial Cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon which was published yesterday. Apparently a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in the cartoon was insulted and cancelled their advertisement with the paper, thus, resulting in the reprimand of my editor and cancellation of It’s Friday cartoons after 21 years of service and over 1090 published cartoons to over 24,000 households per week in 33 counties of Iowa.
I did my research and only submitted the facts in my cartoon.
That’s okay, hopefully my children and my grandchildren will see that this last cartoon published by Farm News out of Fort Dodge, Iowa, will shine light on how fragile our rights to free speech and free press really are in the country.”
He only submitted facts in his cartoon. But apparently, even facts aren’t allowed in the free press, and Rick was fired. According to KCCI, Friday received an email from his editor at Farm New cutting off their relationship a day after the cartoon was published.
If these companies didn’t want anyone to see this message, they sure chose the wrong way to handle this.
We think Rick Friday is a hero. Please share so that others can see his story and scoop up this amazing talent.
A few months ago, the Senate released the newest version of the DARK Act, a piece of legislation that is anti-consumer, anti-transparency, and anti-labeling. It is a bill that is backed by Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and a dwindling number of food companies that are still trying to keep consumers in the dark.
This group, firmly entrenched in the past, has proposed voluntary electronic or QR code for consumers to scan with their smartphones to find out if their food contains genetically-modified ingredients. What’s a “QR code”? Those black and white squares you see on packaging without any words.
There is no way that this is a solution, and several of us flew to DC a few weeks later to meet with Republicans and Democrats to discuss how anti-American this proposed legislation is.
Well, apparently, it’s back.
This “compromise” is a high-tech gimmick to keep Americans in the dark about what’s really in their food. Thankfully, a petition launched to urge the Senate to reject this confusing scheme and require simple, mandatory GMO labels.
Please reach out to your local Senator (link below). Many of them have kids and grandkids, too. Talk about it in a way that resonates with them as parents.
If you’re not sure what an electronic or QR code is, you’re not alone. The processed and junk food lobby knows consumers won’t know how or won’t take the time to scan every label in the grocery store. It is only something identifiable with a smart phone.
And those who don’t own smartphones — especially disadvantaged and marginalized communities, and rural America — won’t have the ability to find out if their food contains GMO ingredients at all.
“With liberty and justice for all” or just those with smart phones?
This is not equal, and we should not stand for it.
This proposal by the the processed and junk food lobby is unacceptable. Campbell’s knows it and recently broke with the industry to demand mandatory GMO labeling for all Americans. Since then, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogg’s, Mars and others have joined and already labeled their products if they contain GMOs.
So whose interests is the Grocery Manufacturers Association protecting? Certainly not American consumers, when these ingredients are labeled around the world, in China, India, Russia, across Europe, Japan, Australia, the UK, and on and on.
We must ensure the Senate acts in the interest of all Americans who want GMO food labeled. We must ensure that the chemical corporations making these products are held accountable.
Intel is happy to promote their products with the campaign “Intel Inside.” It’s time for the chemical companies to do the same.
If food companies can add a “QR code” square to the package without added costs, they can add the words “made with genetically engineered ingredients.” As a matter of fact, General Mills, Campbells, Kellogg’s, Mars and ConAgra already are.
“GMO Labels are Meaningless!” proclaims a Los Angeles Times Op Ed headline published on April 14, 2016. The piece authored by Dr. Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, exposes a hubris common in the biotechnology world. He claims, “Labels will appear on an illogical hodgepodge of new and old products that will in no way indicate risk, safety, quality or anything else that is meaningful.”
However, a growing coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental groups, consumers, and retailers disagree. Dr. Miller forgets that how we grow food matters, not just the science that gets us the seed.
GMO and Impact on Farming
Dr. Miller ridicules the proponents of GMO labeling but fails to address a major concern of consumers. Genetic engineering in food continues to be plagued with doubts and reservations because the most profound impact of genetic engineering in agriculture allows plants to either resist the action of the herbicide glyphosate, or the plant is engineered to produce its own pesticide.
The direct harm from farming practices linked with growing GMO crops includes loss of organic matter, disturbed soil ecology, decrease in carbon sequestration, compromised water aggregates and filtration, weed resistance, and risk of disease to farm workers directly attributed to pesticides and other endocrine disruptors.
According to Charles Benbrook glyphosate use in the agricultural sector rose 300-fold from 1974 to 2014. Benbrook also reports increasing use of glyphosate as a harvest aid for wheat, barley, edible beans, and a few other crops, with the impact of increasing residues of glyphosate in the food supply.
A growing number of farmers, the unsung scientists working the land, have figured out that chemically intensive agriculture compromises their soil and everything to do with yield. They are buying more non-GMO seed. Others are merely responding to price premiums driven by consumer demand.
Consumer Demand Increases with Increasing Glyphosate Residues in Food
Dr. Miller conveniently ignores concerns voiced by fellow physicians and scientists regarding potential risks with increasing residues of glyphosate in food. Benbrook documents Monsanto’s success in convincing the EPA to allow for substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in animal forages from those crops. Greater tolerance levels results in greater residues of glyphosate measured in the food supply, but not by the folks who should be doing the testing.
A Civil Eats article published in February 17, 2016 exposes rather arrogant policies at both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Government Accounting Office found that while both agencies routinely conduct testing for the residues of hundreds of pesticides in food, “both agencies routinely skip testing for glyphosate claiming such testing is too expensive and not needed to protect public health.”
In the meantime, bureaucrats dither while consumers push back. There is a reason organic sales continue to increase by double digit percentages every year. Business is merely responding to consumer demand.
Consumers Voting with Their Dollars
Dr. Miller seems rather appalled that large food companies have stepped up to label food products using genetically modified ingredients in accordance to Vermont legislation. He complains that Vermont legislation will require GMO labels on as much as 75% of supermarket offerings—as if that’s a problem.
In essence, Dr Miller exposes a disconcerting lack of perspective when he states, “What is important is the function of the genetic change.” Much like the CEO of Monsanto, Dr. Miller needs to step down from his biotechnology high horse and consider how growing genetically modified crop impacts the food chain, the environment, and entire ecosystems.
American consumers overwhelmingly voice support for GMO labeling. With GMO labeling they will know more about the extent to which genetically modified corn, soy, sugar beet and canola can be found in the food supply.
To Dr. Miller’s consternation, consumers will probably continue to vote with their dollars regardless of biotechnology’s claims of safety for one simple reason. The science regarding everything meaningful isn’t settled at all.
Erin Schrode has done more in her first 25 years of life than a lot of people do in a lifetime. She and her mom founded a groundbreaking organization called Turning Green that has gone on to impact families around the country.
Since co-founding Turning Green in 2005, she has developed education and social action platforms to inspire, educate, and mobilize millions of students and the global public. Erin is also the eco correspondent for Fusion (ABC and Univision’s new joint venture). But that’s just the start. Erin has been featured in and tapped as an expert for the NY Times, Vanity Fair, ABC, CNN, Seventeen Magazine and various multimedia outlets. As The White House said, “Erin is a dynamic, passionate and ambitious young woman committed to creating big change everywhere she goes.”
But most importantly, she is a friend, and she has been for several years now. Wise beyond her years, you can’t say you have watched her “grow up,” as she has more wisdom in her than people twice her age. What has been fun as her friend is to watch her champion causes for a better planet. Our health is one of those causes. We won’t get far without it.
And now, from her hometown of Marin County, California to New York University to seventy nations around the globe, this innovative entrepreneur is on a lifelong journey to inspire people to action that ensures a just, safe, thriving world for future generations. Erin is running for Congress. You can follow her on Twitter @ErinSchrode #ErinForUs. And you can listen to our podcast, Take Out with Ashley and Robyn, and this inspiring interview with one of the most powerful game-changers of her generation and in our country. Please meet Erin Schrode. http://tinyurl.com/hhw89ax
A few weeks ago, I spoke at a financial conference. My talk was titled “The New Food Economy.”
In it, I discussed the the incredible transformation that is happening in our food system and the opportunities in it.
In the last few years, we have seen explosive growth in the “free-from” category, as consumers around the country are trying to protect their health and move to #dumpthejunk.
The demand for organic continues at the retail level, in grocery stores like Kroger, in Wal Mart, in Costco and in Safeway, and online with the launch of Thrive Market.
However, we don’t just wake up with a new set of eyes. In many cases, this food awakening and demand for food that is free from artificial ingredients, additives, artificial growth hormones and GMOs has been proceeded by a diagnosis. Something sends us into the grocery store with a different lens: for some, it is food allergies, for others, diabetes and for others, perhaps it’s cancer.
The escalating rates of pediatric cancers, food allergies, diabetes, obesity, autism and so many other conditions, are forcing consumers to pay attention to how their food is made.
The escalating rates of pediatric cancers, food allergies, diabetes, obesity, autism and so many other conditions, are forcing consumers to pay attention to how their food is made. None of us would choose the diagnosis that brought us here, but once our eyes have been opened, we can not unlearn the information. We are waking up to the fact that diet can play a significant role in health and disease, and as a result. there is an incredible movement towards transparency in our food production.
We see it in the number of food shows on television, we see it in the number of apps we can download, and we see it in the health of our loved ones.
As our country is hit with increasing rates of disease, it is impacting everything from our personal finances, to the health care costs in our companies, to the U.S. economy. We spend more than any other country on the planet on health care and disease management. There is so much that we can to do clean up our food supply, especially when we learn that U.S. food companies are already making their products without artificial ingredients, artificial dyes and artificial growth hormones overseas. It is especially hard to also learn that our own U.S. food companies label GMOs in their products overseas but not for their American consumers. That double standard hits us in the gut, but it is also a reminder that making these changes is very much within reach. We are not asking these companies to reinvent the wheel, simply to bring it home.
Those companies that have nothing to hide are winning. Campbell’s and General Mills stepped forward, calling for mandatory GMO labeling, as the organic industry sees growth at 11-14% per year.
At the event, hosted by Tony Robbins, I discussed the opportunities in the food industry as well as the bottleneck: the fact that less than 1% of U.S. farmland is organic, despite the exploding demand. In the United States, we have over 900 million acres under farm management, but only 5.5 million of them are organic, despite the incredible interest from companies like Wal Mart, Costco, General Mills and others. So who provides the supply to this growing demand? Right now, it’s being outsourced to other countries, countries more invested in organic food production. companies that have hedged themselves against the biotech industry’s promises of GMOs. In other words, we are giving away that economic upside to our trading partners. Their farmers are winning, their economies are winning, their food industry is winning because in America, we don’t have enough diversity – less than 1% of our farmland is organic.
During any talk, my absolute favorite part is the Q&A. But at this financial conference, this audience was different. The audience had people in it, who if they’d wanted to, could have reverse-engineered a hedge fund.
Their Q&A reflected that, and I was asked what I thought would happen to Monsanto. There was no emotion in it. What happens next?
I said, “If Enron taught us anything, you can only financially engineer your earnings model for so long. Monsanto has financed share buybacks with debt and are doing everything they can to secure policy in their favor. But the truth is that a growing number of countries are opting out of their signature products.”
They will look to M&A activity, they will look to secure policy in their favor.
Needless to say, when the biotech industry learned I’d given this talk, they threw up all over social media. But it didn’t change the truth.
As I flew home from the event, the emails starting coming in, the stories, the gratitude from those who had attended. “I have a son with peanut allergy….” “My mom is battling cancer…..” Diet is not one size fits all, but food that is free-from artificial ingredients is better for everyone.
What I’ve found in the last decade of giving these talks, is that once you learn of this double standard, you can’t unlearn it. Many then ask: Why are American companies making their products without these ingredients overseas but not here? How can we take personal responsibility for our health if we don’t know how our food is produced or what is applied to it? And why, only in the last month, did the FDA finally announce that they would start testing for the amount of glyphosate on our food? Last year, the World Health Organization declared this product a probable carcinogen.
But nothing could have prepared me for what happened next.
And then, headlines that Sweden and the Netherlands are joining France in opposition to Monsanto’s signature product.
Beyond that, Portland announced that they are suing the agrochemical giant, Citigroup downgraded them, and in an amazing turn of events, the Senate slowed a bill that would have taken away our right to know what is in our food. The Senate hedged on deciding whether Americans should know whether or not GMOs are in our food.
And General Mills stepped into that, announcing that they would label GMOs. They listened to their consumers.
The food industry is realizing that by listening to the chemical industry, they failed to hear their consumers.
The food industry is realizing that by listening to the chemical industry, they failed to hear their consumers.
The food companies and American families do not need a chemical company running our food system. It’s not in the best interest of either.
And this agrochemical model, genetically engineering seeds to withstand increasing doses of weedkillers now considered a “probable carcinogen” is a business model that the world increasingly no longer trusts, especially from the company making these product here in America.
In China, there are companies making GMOs. In China, GMOs are labeled. Most companies are proud to represent their products in a consumer-facing way. It builds brand loyalty. But here in the U.S., Monsanto was able to get the food industry to do its bidding, to carry its dirty water and to hide the fact that their products, their GMOs, were in our everyday foods.
Thankfully, this stage is over. With pressure coming from around the country, state labeling bills like Vermont, efforts to do the same in Colorado, California, Oregon and so many other states, it has become increasingly clear that transparency is not a fad. The anti-labeling movement is un-American. The food industry is moving with its consumers, stepping away from spending millions on anti-labeling campaigns that protect the interests of the chemical companies.
It’s a big move for the industry, and consumers could not be more grateful.
We need all hands on deck.
It is time to build a better food system for our farmers, our families and our future. And that starts with our own food companies.
It is time to hedge ourselves against this monoculture of corn and soy created by the chemical industry, to diversify our farming economy and to protect our future. It is time to reallocate our subsidies so that more than 1% of them can be used to support fruit and vegetable farmers.
It’s time to diversify here, to open these opportunities to American farmers and American food companies.
Food security is national security.
Securing our health secures our country. It is a national security issue. Right now, 7 out of 10 young Americans can’t quality for the military. Where we were once too fat to fight, we are now too allergic, too diabetic. We can fix this. There’s upside in this new food economy for our food companies and for our families.
