Dow Chemical is seeking USDA approval for a genetically engineered (GE) version of corn that is resistant to 2,4-D, a herbicide that was used in the formulation of the highly toxic defoliant Agent Orange.  Agent Orange (half 2,4-D by composition) was extensively used in Vietnam by the military to destroy forests and crops.

Dow’s Christmas gift for America was formally announced, by the USDA, in the December 27, 2011 edition of the Federal Register.  If the federal government wants to bury something in the news, and burn up part of our window to publicly respond, you can bet they’ll do it around the holidays.  The public has 60 days to comment on Dow’s petition for deregulation, and can do so online at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001

Weeds are increasingly adapting to Monsanto’s genetically engineered line of crops that rely on the use of a different herbicide, glyphosate, which Monsanto markets as Round-up®.  This is leading competitors, like Dow, and proponents of GE agriculture to look for weed killing alternatives.  Herbicides more toxic than Round-up® appear to be next up in the pipeline.

2,4-D, a systemic herbicide, is used on many types of broadleaf weeds.  It is a chlorinated phenoxy compound that has caused serious eye and skin irritation among agricultural workers.  According to information compiled by Cornell University, rats fed 2,4-D produced “fetuses with abdominal cavity bleeding and increased mortality.”  And 2,4-D may cause infertility, birth defects, organ toxicity and neurological effects.

As Dow’s GE corn is resistant to the herbicide, it is possible that the plant may absorb 2,4-D residues into its structure, and then transfer those chemicals, or their related metabolites, to livestock and humans consuming corn or milk, meat and eggs  produced from the GE crop.

The USDA also just announced the proposed approval for a new strain of drought resistant corn, and a soybean, Soymega™, both from Monsanto.  The Obama White House appears to be giving Monsanto and Dow, and other biotechnology corporations, everything they want while the public, according to polls, is overwhelmingly concerned about genetic engineering and losing control of our diets.

Thanks for speaking out in defense of a sane food production system. We hope you will be proactive by doing the following to protect your family:

1. Exclusively purchase organic products in the supermarket.  They are the only food items that are legally prohibited from using GMOs with oversight sanctioned by Congress and independent watchdogs like The Cornucopia Institute.
2. We hope you also consider signing the following petition, asking President Barack Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to consider the widespread public opposition to further release of novel genetic organisms in our environment. Given the immaturity of the industry, the long-term impacts to health and the environment are simply unknown. The petition also calls for mandatory labeling of GMOs giving consumers the right to choose.  Click here to read and sign this petition.

We are continuing to collect proxies to present to the spring meeting of National Organic Standards Board to keep the pressure on the decision makers.

Please take a moment to print, sign and mail the proxy letter today!

The organic label was founded on the idea that food should be produced in concert with nature, without dangerous chemicals and synthetic ingredients. Another organic value: animals should be raised on real farms that treat them with respect, not exploited on “factory farms.”

Since the government began regulating the organic label, corporate agribusinesses and their lobbyists have been doing everything in their power to co-opt the values the organic movement was founded upon while taking a larger slice of the profit pie.

We were promised change under the Obama administration, but the corrupt alliance between the USDA and corporate agribusiness remains strong with wholesale approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while federal officials look the other way as the organic law continues to be compromised.

At their upcoming meeting, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has the opportunity to close loopholes and strengthen the regulations, but a handful of corporate sector Board members are attempting to do the exact opposite: watering down the standards.

Corporate lobbyists will be at the NOSB meeting at this spring – and so will we, to counter their claims and make sure your voice, supporting organic integrity, is heard.

Please take a moment to print, sign and mail the proxy letter with these requests:

1. Enforce the organic standards on factory dairies masquerading as “organic.”Since the adoption of the new pasture rule, the USDA has made no effort to systematically visit and inspect the two dozen or so giant factory farms—with up to 9,000 cows each—producing “organic” milk, generally in the desert Southwest, to ensure compliance.

   Giant corporate dairies continue to squeeze family farmers, and deceive consumers. We need enforcement action NOW. These industrial-scale dairies have a history of scoffing at the law and deserve scrutiny!

2. Genetically modified microorganisms that are chemically processed and stabilized with synthetic ingredients have no place in organics – especially organic infant formula, baby food and milk.USDA officials admitted in 2010 that their predecessors incorrectly allowed Martek Biosciences Corporation’s unapproved (therefore illegal) synthetic nutrient additives (DHA oil and ARA oil—from fermented algae and soil fungus) in organic foods.

   Yet the Obama administration has refused to take enforcement action and remove the offending illegal ingredients from organic foods.

   After a friendly meeting with the USDA, Martek Biosciences Corporation petitioned regulators for approval of their chemically processed, synthetic nutrient additives in organic food. Their corporate friends and the Organic Trade Association (OTA) have joined in lobbying the USDA to approve these materials.

   Join us in urging the USDA to close the door on the future use of novel, unproven synthetic additives in organics and for their immediate removal from existing products.

3. Stand up for meaningful outdoor access in organic egg, chicken, turkey & hog production.Another incorrect interpretation made under the Bush administration (and now acknowledged under the Obama administration) was to allow giant henhouses to confine up to 100,000 birds in a single building without access to the outdoors (as the law requires).

   The NOSB is currently considering new rules to eliminate these atrocities. But instead of recommending a reasonable amount of outdoor space for chickens, they are proposing an outdoor space requirement that doesn’t even give the birds enough room to spread their wings, let alone run around, dustbathe and forage for seeds and insects in the outdoors.

   As for pigs, the NOSB’s woefully inadequate space proposal resembles recommendations by the National Pork Board, the industry lobby group representing factory farmers!

4. We also request the USDA to stop stacking the National Organic Standards Board with agribusiness representatives instead of truly experienced, independent and respected voices from the organic community. Farmer slots and consumers slots, as mandated by Congress, should go to real organic farmers and organic consumers, not corporate reps.

To a large degree, the future of organics is in your hands. At Cornucopia we are proud, with 4,500 members, to represent more organic farmers than any other group in the United States (about 30% of our members are the farmers’ most astute urban allies/customers).

But you need to make your voice heard to counter the powerful corporate influence.

When we attend these USDA organic meetings, we are badly outgunned by corporate lobbyists—our power comes from the organic community and the good food movement standing together.

Please take a moment to print, sign, and mail back the proxy letter—today!

We will hand-carry your proxy to the USDA spring meeting, adding your voice to the demand that laws covering organics be enforced!

Depending on what the NOSB decides this fall, we might not have another chance to keep organics from being corrupted permanently.

If we lose on these issues, the quality of organic food and the lives of organic livestock will be degraded, while the floodgates to more corporate exploitation of the organic label will be opened.

Thank you!
The staff of The Cornucopia Institute

PS: Would you please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to The Cornucopia Institute to help underwrite this expensive campaign and the work we do to protect the integrity of the organic label—however, no donation is necessary for us to hand-carry your proxy letter to the upcoming USDA meeting.

Please mail your letter, as soon as possible, to:
The Cornucopia Institute
PO Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827

Please print out a copy of the proxy for each member of your family and consider forwarding this message to your friends and contacts who share your passion for protecting nutritious, authentic food and the family farmers who produce it.

Tell President Obama that you don’t want organic and conventional agriculture contaminated by GE Alfalfa, and that you have a right to eat meat, dairy, and eggs from livestock who consume non-genetically engineered crops.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a fundamental source of livestock forage for dairy and beef farmers. Livestock farmers consider it the “queen of legumes.”

Alfalfa is a perennial crop that is open-pollinated by bees and other insects – with a pollination radius as large as 5 miles. Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered alfalfa threatens to contaminate both conventional and organic agriculture year after year with the drift and spread of its novel DNA. It has sparked an ongoing court battle and stiff opposition from both conventional and organic farmers, seed producers, beekeepers, exporters, and a mix of food and farm groups, retailers and organic food manufacturers.

Contact President Obama and let him know that the USDA’s approval of GE Alfalfa is dangerous, unacceptable, and MUST be reversed.

Tell him and the first lady, Michelle Obama, to think about the organic garden in their back yard and whether they want their two daughters to have access to natural, organic food, without genetic contamination, in perpetuity.

President Barack Obama:

Phone: (202) 456-1111
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Email: Contact the Whitehouse

For a fact sheet with additional information on GE Alfalfa, click here.

“How traumatic for my child to have to experience a time that should be of comfort and closeness to me, to be so disturbing and painful,” a mother wrote to the FDA. Her 4-month old infant daughter experienced severe gastrointestinal distress and stomach cramping from infant formula supplemented with DHA and ARA oils. This mother learned that DHA/ARA may cause side effects, and her baby’s symptoms disappeared as soon as she switched to a non-DHA/ARA-supplemented formula.

Another mother had a similar experience with her 3-month old infant son. When her son’s diarrhea disappeared as soon as she switched to formula without DHA and ARA, she wrote to the FDA: “Today was the first day in three months that he actually had a firm stool with no sign of diarrhea.” My baby is not an experiment. Mead Johnson should be ashamed of itself for allowing this to happen and the FDA should take responsibility for our health and the health of our children.”

Help us put an end to this unnecessary suffering and write to the FDA Commissioner today.

We need you to speak up for the helpless infants and distressed parents who have suffered long enough. The Cornucopia Institute and the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy have filed a petition with the FDA, urging them to require a label notice for all infant food products containing the DHA and ARA oils that are causing such painful side effects in some infants. (A sample letter below will help you voice your concerns.)

It is time for the FDA to take responsibility!

Had the distressed parents contacted the formula manufacturers, these mothers would not have been told to switch away from DHA/ARA-supplemented formula. And nowhere on the formula label or websites do the manufacturers warn of the possibility of diarrhea, vomiting and stomach pain.

While many scientists doubt the benefits of manufactured DHA and ARA oils, little doubt exists that at least a subset of the infant population experiences severe side effects, including watery, explosive diarrhea, severe vomiting, and gastrointestinal distress serious complications in this vulnerable population. Manufactured DHA and ARA fatty acids are structurally different from those found naturally in breastmilk. This structural difference may be one of many possible reasons why some infants experience such severe side effects.

Currently, parents have no way of knowing that their infant’s diarrhea, vomiting, or other gastrointestinal pain may be related to the consumption of formula containing these oils. We need your help to pressure the FDA  this is an important issue that needs immediate attention.

Every day that passes without such a clear warning label could mean another day of pain and serious health repercussions for an unlucky infant whose distressed parents or healthcare providers are unaware that a simple switch to a formula without DHA/ARA could relieve symptoms within a day.

Please write to the FDA Commissioner today.

Feel free to use the sample message below or write your own letter or e-mail message based on the information provided in this action alert or in the comprehensive report titled Replacing Mother – Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory, available at http://cornucopia.org/index.php/replacing-mother-infant-formula-report/.

Send an email message to: commissioner@fda.gov
or mail your letter to the address in this sample letter:

Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857

Dear Commissioner von Eschenbach,

The FDA has received numerous reports from parents and caregivers of infants who experienced severe side effects from consuming infant formula with DHA and ARA oils. While it appears that most infants tolerate these oils, which are extracted from fermented algae and soil fungus with the use of a toxic petrochemical, some infants experience watery, explosive diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal distress. These can be serious complications for a vulnerable population.

The Cornucopia Institute and the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy have filed a petition with the FDA on January 24, 2008, urging you to revise the labeling requirements for infant formulas that contain DHA and ARA from algal and fungal sources. They specifically request a notice on the label of infant formula with DHA- and ARA-containing oils to warn parents of the possibility of adverse reactions to these novel ingredients.

Given the pain and suffering that some infants are unnecessarily experiencing from the consumption of these oils, I urge you to take immediate action. Formula manufacturers are not warning parents that these oils may cause adverse reactions, and parents of suffering infants, and their healthcare providers, have no way of knowing that switching to a non-DHA/ARA-supplemented formula could relieve symptoms within a day. A simple warning on the label of infant formulas could go a long way in preventing any future suffering of helpless infants.

Sincerely,

{{{Your Name}}}

CORNUCOPIA, WI: Small-scale farmers, retailers, and consumers are outraged over a new federal regulation that will require all almonds grown in California to be sterilized with various “pasteurization” techniques. The rule, which the USDA quietly developed in response to outbreaks of Salmonella in 2001 and 2004, traced to raw almonds, mandates that all almonds undergo a sterilization process that includes chemical and/or high-temperature treatments.

Although the final rule was just published in the Federal Register, The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, is asking the USDA to reopen the proceeding for public comment. Cornucopia contends that the rule was never effectively announced to the public, and that the reasoning behind both the necessity and safety of the sterilization processes should be questioned before the rule goes into effect this September.

Click here to read a comprehensive fact sheet on the almond issue.

“The new rule is unwarranted and could have many harmful impacts,” said Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst at Cornucopia. “The costs of the chemical and heat treatments, in addition to the costs of transporting and recording the new procedures, will be especially onerous on small-scale and organic farmers, and could force many out of business.”

The only exemption to these new regulations will be organic “raw” almonds that will not be fumigated, but will undergo the steam-heat treatment, and small-scale growers who can sell truly raw almonds but only direct to the public from farm stands.

Although foodborne illnesses have garnered headlines in recent years, including contamination of California-grown spinach and lettuce, raw produce and nuts are not inherently risky foods. Contamination occurs when livestock manure or fecal matter is inadvertently transferred to food through contaminated water, soil, or transportation and handling equipment. Raw foods can also be infected by poor employee sanitation either on the farm or in processing facilities.

Glenn Anderson, a small-scale organic almond farmer in the central valley of California, worries that  “This could be one more way for the big companies and the government to put us small farmers out of business.”

The equipment to sterilize almonds is very expensive. A propylene oxide chamber costs $500,000 to $1,250,000, and a roasting line can cost as much as $1,500,000 to $2,500,000.

Anderson also questions the scientific logic behind the rule. He and some other growers believe that the sustainable farming methods they use, such as mowing and mulching, rather than controlling weeds by chemical herbicide applications, protect biodiversity and naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than the artificial process of pasteurization (sterilization) – which attempts to mitigate contamination after the fact.  According to growers practicing sustainable farming methods, the USDA plan ignores the root causes of food contamination – the dangerous and unsustainable farming practices on industrial farms.

Consumers who oppose the new regulation also worry about its impact on the quality and nutrition of pasteurized almonds, since the Almond Board of California (a marketing arm of the USDA) has conducted the only study on the practice. Their research concluded that “there was no significant degradation in the quality” of the almonds. “The validity of these findings is questionable given the vested interests of the research panel,” Kastel stated.

The most common method of sterilizing almonds is by propylene oxide fumigation. Propylene oxide is a genotoxic chemical and is listed as a possible carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer Research. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. It is listed as a “possible” carcinogen because no long-term studies have been done with humans. Its use for treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.

It is The Cornucopia Institute’s contention that even if independent research concludes that treated almonds are in fact safe, labeling them as “raw” is misleading and deceptive to consumers, many of whom wish to purchase truly raw, unprocessed almonds. “Raw foods are increasingly in demand. The new rule is another case of the public being deprived the opportunity to intelligently choose their food supply,” said Jimbo Someck, who owns and operates four of the country’s leading independent natural food stores, in the San Diego area.

The new regulation to sterilize almonds coincides with the recent announcement by the Food and Drug Administration that it intends to relax its labeling requirements for irradiated food. The FDA proposal will also allow irradiation, the controversial ionization process, to be called pasteurization – a reference that is troubling many food safety watchdogs.

“Consumers deserve to know how their food has been processed,” said Food and Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Mislabeling irradiated food as “pasteurized” or treated food as “raw” is an industry attempt to make consumers buy products that they otherwise might avoid.”

In light of heightened public concern, the Cornucopia Institute has appealed to USDA Secretary Mike Johannes to postpone implementation of the new regulatory requirements and reopen the almond docket to public comment. Only 18 public comments – all from the almond industry – were received on the proposal. Unlike consumers, retailers, or other organizations concerned with food safety, all almond handlers received a personal letter or fax from the USDA alerting them to the sterilization proposal and inviting them to comment.

“The industry and the USDA tried to slip this through quietly, under the radar, without adequate public scrutiny,” Cornucopia’s Kastel lamented. “We are asking the Secretary of a unit of government that Abraham Lincoln referred to as the “People’s Department” to intervene so concerned citizens can have a say. The close collaboration, away from the eyes of the citizens and the media, we are sure, is not something the Secretary will feel good about.”

According to Andrew Kimbrell, the Director of the Center for Food Safety, “The decision to foist fumigants on unsuspecting almond consumers is just another example of an agency out of control.”

Adds Kimbrell, “USDA is being run lock, stock, and barrel by agribusiness and has abandoned its duty to protect the public and the farming community. This USDA decision, along with FDA’s long-standing refusal to label genetically engineered food, and its recent decision to attempt to label irradiated foods as “pasteurized,” is a conscious effort by the Administration to leave consumers in the dark about the dangers lurking in their food.”

FDA regulations currently require that all single-ingredient foods that have been irradiated and are sold by retailers must be labeled as “treated with irradiation” and must display the radura symbol.