One of the organizers of the event, Steven Payan of Occupy Woodland, said in a release late Sunday, “This is about hundreds of thousands of lives lost, deformed from chemicals and mass pollution to [the] environment and a company allowed to get away with it because of government ties, and massive lobbying dollars.”
According to their release, “Occupy Monsanto worldwide will confront the industrial agriculture system head-on. Some protests could result in widespread arrests of people who choose to engage in non-violent civil disobedience.”
They add, “Occupy Monsanto protests will feature costumes made of bio-hazmat protective gear that can also protect against pepper spray from police who have routinely attacked occupy protests in the past year.”
“There is something wrong when a chemical manufacturer, the same company who made Agent Orange, controls the US food supply,” says Jaye Crawford, a member of the Genetic Crimes Unit in Atlanta.
“Wall Street and the American political elite have underestimated and even ignored our potential to effect rational policy change on GMOs which would include labeling for GMOs and restrictions on GMO cultivation,” says Gene Etic, an anti-GMO campaigner based in Washington, DC. “In the context of the Presidential election, and the power of that office to determine food policy…the media and increasingly more voters (should) ask tough questions about these experimental GMO crops.”
The Occupy action is a more radical approach to an issue that is quickly emerging as a top ballot fight. Amid ballot measures featuring the governor’s budget, union membership, the death penalty and three strikes, Prop 37 is emerging as a top ballot measure in terms of money.
According to an AP article from August, “The nation’s largest agribusiness and biotech companies are pouring millions of dollars into California to stop the first-ever initiative to require special labels on foods made with genetically modified ingredients, a sign of their determination to keep the measure from sparking a nationwide movement.”
Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer and Cargill have already contributed $25 million to defeat this ballot proposition that would simply require the labeling of foods that are made of genetically modified foods.
Kathy Fairbanks, spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign, told the AP that grocery bills would increase if the initiative succeeds.
“Everyone is impacted because everyone buys groceries, and one of the impacts is going to be higher grocery bills,” Ms. Fairbanks said. “Prop. 37 leaves consumers with the incorrect impression that there is something wrong with GE crops, when that is not true.”
Leading the way was Monsanto, which has already contributed $4.2 million as of August.
Stacy Malkan, Media Director for the Yes on 37 campaign, said, “The same corporations and political operatives that made false health claims about cigarettes, DDT and Agent Orange are now bringing us the No on 37 campaign.”
“The fact is that 50 countries around the world now require labeling genetically engineered foods because of concerns about health risks and harm to the environment,” Ms. Malkan said.
In the face of the $25 million campaign, The Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign launched a $150,000 early media blitz last week directly challenging the record of deceit of the big corporations that are now working to deny Californians the right to know what’s in their food.
The 30-second ad – which will run in select online news venues and on broadcast and cable television stations in major California media markets for 10 days – presents the history of notoriously inaccurate corporate health claims, including falsehoods from some of the very same corporations now funding the No on 37 campaign.
“Californians have a right to know whether or not their baby formula, corn chips or soy milk contains ingredients that have not been proven safe,” Ms. Malkan added.
According to the video text: “We’ve heard the false corporate health claims before…. Cigarettes aren’t harmful. DDT is safe. Agent Orange is harmless. Now they say genetically engineered food is safe. If Monsanto and Dow think these foods are safe, why are they fighting our right to know what’s in our food? Vote yes on 37 for the right to know what’s in our food.”
Among the major backers of the No on 37 campaign are Monsanto at $4.2 million, Dow Chemical at $1.2 million, DuPont at $4 million, plus a number of tobacco industry giants as well.
Henry Miller, of the Hoover Institute, is a leading spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign. He “has called for the reintroduction of DDT in the U.S. and is linked to a tobacco industry front group that worked to discredit science on tobacco health risks.”
In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle August 24 he argued, “The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe.”
According to supporters of this measure, “None of these organizations has concluded genetically engineered foods are safe. The American Medical Association and World Health Organization/United Nations have said mandatory safety studies should be required — a standard that the U.S. fails to meet. Numerous studies in the scientific literature suggest genetic engineering is linked to allergies and other adverse health effects. Despite these scientific warnings, the U.S. federal government requires no safety studies for genetically engineered foods, and no long-term human health studies have been conducted.”
A National Academy of Sciences report concludes that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”
Moreover, they dispute the notion that Proposition 37 will raise the cost of groceries by hundreds of dollars per year.
Instead, they argue, “Disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients on food labels will not force food companies to raise the cost of groceries.”
In a recent study of the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded: “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.”
Nor will it ban the sales of thousands of groceries as proponents note, it will only require that they be labeled with the phrase “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
At the same time as Monsanto has become a focal point in the Prop 37 battle, a big article appeared this weekend that the Monsanto facility in Woodland is greatly expanding.
The plant has added a $31 million investment which, according to the article in the Daily Democrat, “will see the facility grow to 200,000 square feet, about the same size as three and a half NFL football fields – is set to be completed in August 2013. Construction began in April.”
“It’s a great thing for Yolo County,” said Wes Ervin, manager of economic development for Yolo County to the Daily Democrat. “This Monsanto expansion happens to be very large by seed industry standards. This is great. It’s a critical mass that we have here. We have the world’s largest concentration of vegetable seed research companies in Yolo County.”
Carly Scaduto, vegetable communications manager for Monsanto told the paper: “When it comes to our vegetable seeds business, the Woodland site is truly the backbone of Monsanto’s vegetable research.”
The goal, according to Mr. Ervin, is to make Yolo County the backbone of the industry on seed research.
“Silicon Valley is a widely accepted brand,” Mr. Ervin told the paper. “I don’t think ‘Seed Central’ is as widely known. It’s certainly well known to the seed industry, but not to the general public – yet.”
The paper adds: “In fact, technology advancements in the seed industry are analogist to advancements in communications technology, said Ervin, in that, “everything is getting faster.””
“Plant breeding is the heart of Monsanto’s vegetable seed and row crop research, ranging from conventional breeding, to the use of cutting-edge molecular science that precisely identifies and locates genetic markers that correspond with desirable characteristics such as disease resistance, according to Scaduto.”
“The research completed in the new building will help bring new beneficial seeds to farmers around the world faster,” Ms. Scaduto said.
No wonder Monsanto is fighting this initiative, at the same time they are expanding their operations here locally.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just one doctors point of view.
There are two separate issues here that are being put forward as though they are one.
1) The concept of the right of the public to know what they are purchasing and eating. I have no problem at all with the label lung of GMO products as such any sore than I object to labeling a product according to its vitamin or caloric intake.
2) GMOs being portrayed as some villainous, evil product that will potentially cause some theoretical but unspecified harm. This I object to as it plays on unsubstantiated fears and attempts to link practices that have little to do with each other. There is a huge difference between the lying perpetrated by tobacco company executives who knew full well that their products were causative agents in a number of kinds of cancer and actively tried to refute it, and the current position that long term human studies have not been conducted, which is factual. To me, this is nothing but a scare tactic which should have no part in this debate.
My recommendation ?
A yes vote on Prop 37 for the purpose of transparency in product content.
A resounding ignoring of the histrionics of the Occupy Monsanto folks who I suspect are long on good intentions, and woefully short ( at least at this point in time ) on data to support their alarmist position.
Oops, sorry about lack of editing. Smaller electronics no so good for same. Forgive me Rifs ?
You go Occupy Monsanto zealots, drive those good paying jobs out of Davis and Woodland. That will teach them.
Good paying jobs? Which ones are you referring to? Also, since they are doing this around the country/ world, why would their actions drive anything out of Davis/ Woodland?
Siegel, the alter ego
You seem to have a fixation on me, I’m really flattered.
100 Best Companies to work for:
59. Monsanto
Get Quote: MONFinancials: Latest Results Rank: 59 (Previous rank: N.A.)
What makes it so great?
Despite vociferous protests by activists about its genetically modified seeds, employees say they are proud to work for a company they see as feeding the world.
Headquarters: 800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167
“You seem to have a fixation on me, I’m really flattered. “
Not at all. You seem usually utter the most objectionable material which incites me to log on. I used to be a Republican, people like you have made me question that.
“100 Best Companies to work for…”
I don’t think their labor practices are in question
PS, I notice you failed to answer my questions.
Medwoman – I think your comments are right on point.
Fact is, if not for GMO, we wouldn’t have enough corn, wheat and soybeans to feed the people in the world now. To my knowledge, there has not been a single illness or death attributed to GMOs, but there are numerous issues with salmonella, e coli etc associated with organically grown foods. Yet, the histrionics continue. Hard to fathom.
As the article stated, Yolo County is becoming a center of the seed technology world. Its plays into the intellectual capital at UC Davis, the high quality farmland in the area and abundance of a forward thinking farm community. Several seed companies have now built facilities (construction jobs) in the county, and they are hiring UCD graduates and students to work there – and paying them as technicians and scientists, not as farm workers.
The world needs Monsanto and the other seed companies to continue their work, so that our planet can provide for its inhabitants.
LOL, yeah right….I used to be a Democrat, then I got wise.
For those that want to worry about genetic and microbiological manipulation, aren’t you worried about what is happening with the human body? Check this link to NYTimes [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/health/research/human-muscle-regenerated-with-animal-help.html?_r=1&hpw[/url]
Occupy Movement = Lazy Angry Idiots’ Alternative to Working
Good comments madwoman. Agree completely, along with the frustration of typing on iPhone screen which for DV, doesn’t enlarge for editing. Sometimes just can’t resist commenting when on small screen!
Added press release from the Yes on 37 campaign:
[quote]Monsanto just gave an additional $2.89 million to defeat Proposition 37
, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods in California. Monsanto’s total contribution against Proposition 37 now stands at $7.1 million, according to campaign finance disclosure records
filed with the California Secretary of State.
Other major pesticide companies also just made major additional contributions
to defeat Proposition 37, including DuPont ($874,800), Dow AgroSciences ($815,200), Bayer CropScience ($381,600), BASF Plant Science ($357,700) and Syngenta ($178,700).
“Monsanto wants to buy this election so they can keep hiding what’s really in our food,” said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of the Yes on Proposition 37 campaign. “They are on the losing side of history. Californians want the right to know what’s in our food, and we will win it.”
The “Big 6” pesticide firms (Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF and Syngenta) have contributed $19 million of the $32 million that the No on 37 campaign has raised.[/quote]
[i]”if not for GMO, we wouldn’t have enough corn, wheat and soybeans to feed the people in the world now.”
[/i]
That is not true. There are high-performing hybrids in both corn and soybeans, and since there’s hardly any GMO wheat I have to assume you’re not an expert.
As the old saying goes, “transgenic traits do not increase yield, they protect yield.”
If they protect yeild, then from a macro perspective, they increase yeild… because otherwise non-GMO yeild-impacting natural events would decrease yeilds.
Here is a good example backing this point:
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-fi-drought-corn-research-20120917,0,2177728.story[/url]
Some transgenic varieties might show better drought tolerance than some conventional hybrids. Other conventional hybrids might show better tolerance than GMO’s. We don’t need GMO’s to achieve drought tolerance. They protect yield from some specific losses, not others.
In my opinion, the benefits of GMO varieties have been considerably oversold — leading to statements by Adam Smith’s above. And the down side of them is now becoming apparent in two major regards. The development of resistance (to the specific things that reduce yield), and the extraordinary concentration of seed ownership in the hands of a very small number of companies.
Don is correct about the wheat – I was thinking rice but typed wheat.
The world is running short on food – droughts, salty well irrigation water, weeds and pests are all problems in producing enough food. You can google the numbers yourself, but in my view, it is an inescapable fact that our food supply of the corn, soybeans and rice is considerably more abundant and lower cost than if there was no GMO corn, rice or soybeans. There are potential and real problems with GMOs as Don pointed out — however, the resistance problems to diseases, weeds or insects he mentions are and were problems without regard to GMO crops (ie weeds developed resistance to herbicides long before there were Round Up Ready soybeans. Further, resistance to diseases, weeds or insect pests often reduce the amount of pesticide spray required. IMO, the benefits associated with the improved yields and/or increased number of acres where we can grow the crop (ie drought tolerance or salt tolerance or disease tolerance) – all far outweigh any negative consequence identified so far.
“According to their release, “Occupy Monsanto worldwide will confront the industrial agriculture system head-on.’ “
Well where are they, St. Louis? I went by and all I saw was what amounted to a mob. No one handed me a flyer or tried to engage me in any way. The people with the megaphone seemed to know little about the substantive issues related to Biotech or were really there for other causes associated with the Occupy Movement. I admit I might have missed the smart speakers but I’m doubtful.
Davis is a biotech hub and Monsanto is an integral part of that hub and so is Dupont. I know people with Ph.D.’s that work for these companies in this area or who work for companies that have research relationships with these companies. If you are going to do an anti-GMO protest in Davis you really need to bring your A team because Davis is full of people who can engage in a serious debate. It isn’t that there aren’t serious issues such as gene patenting and herbicide resistance, to name two, but what I saw and heard, one guy talking about our genes being diluted like General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove ranting about his “Precious bodily fluids,” was not up to the task.
Here’s a “news scoop” for you David…. a private citizen will be confronting the demonstrators in regard to their “occupation” of the bike/ped path on the south side of Fifth, probably between 1:30 and 2:00 this afternoon.. The person who will be confronting them intends no violence, but will exercise THEIR First Amendment and other rights… stay tuned, as video may be available.
Cancel previous post info… the person who told me they intended to confront, decided it wasn’t worth their effort, but hoped the protestors would let bicycles thru, unimpeded, particulsarly when the schools let out.
People seem to forget that “free speech” is subject to time/place/manner considerations. Someone’s right to free speech can be trumped if their exercise of it creates a hazard to the public.
I am looking forward to when we can create all new fruits & vegetables, even animals, to taste. I am sick of having to blend up my favorite flavors, when a single plant could contain all in the proper taste balance. The tomapaquat could be only years from creation! There are many of us who tire of simple “corn”, “apples” or even “elephant”. #yawn#
The peacotum, courtesy of old-fashioned Luther Burbank-style conventional hybridization.
[url]http://www.davewilson.com/br40/br40_trees/peacotum.html[/url]
Don, it is clear that you prefer hybridization over GMO.
You make the point that GMO results in a few companies controlling seeds. However, if GMO lacks advantages, then why would you worry about this? If hybrid seeds are as good, wouldn’t they be the less expensive alternative? Why would companies sink billions into GMO, and not just stick with hybridization, if GMO did not hold promise?
Lastly, doesn’t GMO R&D and production provide a lot of good-paying jobs?
I am afflicted with gluten intolerance. I look forward to the day when a Monsanto creates GMO wheat with modified proteins I can tolerate. Do you think something like that can be done by hybridization?
Yet another example of how leftist politics is anti-science.
GMO has been shown to be safe by 300 scientific studies.
[url]http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html[/url]
JR
“The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council’s policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods.”
Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.”
unfortunately, I see this action on the part of the AMA as just another example of my initial point. From opposite sides of the issue, both supporters of, and opponents of GMOs , have decided to link risks of ( or demonstrated lack thereof) with the publics right to know what they are purchasing. Both sides have chosen to engage in what in my opinion is less than honest behavior around this issue.
True statements with regard to this issue would include:
1) There is no conclusive evidence of medical harm unique to GMOs
2) We have precedent for labeling of the contents of food products for many different indications includiing both safety and nutritional
considerations , location of origin of the product, and probably others not coming to mind.
The argument that there should not be labeling because “they may lead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects which has no basis in scientific evidence” while possibly true, is a very paternalistic statement at best. At worst, I think it could be seen as an economic argument for limiting consumer consumer information which is in my mind bad policy and a terrible precedent.
“GMO has been shown to be safe by 300 scientific studies.”
My concern is the lack of longitudinal data. Usually it take 20 to 30 years to know the real health impacts of food or medicine.
How do you react to this study published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology:
Link ([url]http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf[/url])
After a brief look at the paper, I would say that is clear that pet rodents should not be fed Roundup.