Food police target organic foods in California! on TV News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvp3Fxi7Uo
Police raided the Rawsome Foods organic grocery store with guns drawn in search of “raw-foods”. George Hemminger (George4Title) said the battle over organic foods is heating up because large agricultural businesses and corporations feel threatened by local co-ops and have hijacked the FDA and other government regulatory agencies.

RAW VIDEO: California Police raid Organic Food store GUNS DRAWN looking for raw milk!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHoFY7h-do8
California Police raid organic food store looking for raw milk!!

Keep Raw Milk LEGAL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tiOnGSgyQ
In October 2007, California State Legislature passed a bill banning the sale of raw milk. Despite its medicinal value, raw milk will no longer be available to the public. Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to legalize the transportation of unpasteurized milk. Please help save raw milk. Visit www.organicpastures.com to make a donation.

H. R. 778 Unpasteurized (Raw) Milk Legalization Bill

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary

Codex Alimentarius

Page 1 of 108 of a Codex publication

​
What is the Codex? More Michael Pollan and less Dan Brown–we hope. The little-known Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was established in 1963 under the joint auspices of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to devise universal guidelines pertaining to food production, safety and marketing. Its resolutions are not binding; rather, member countries use them as frameworks for local legislation and regulation. Codex texts are exhaustive, technical and occasionally compelling, particularly if you happen to be interested in standards for whole and decorticated pearl millet grains. All texts are publicly available in PDF format at the Codex website.

It’s no surprise that an organization operating largely beyond public scrutiny for almost 50 years to define what we know about what we eat has attracted the fulsome indictments of the lunatic fringe. In fact, the Commission has a set of FAQs to explicitly debunk some of the more egregious rumors about their practices and intent.

This doesn’t mean the Codex is above malignant influence. At a recent meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in Quebec City, Canada, U.S. representatives lobbied the Committee to adopt language specifying that “GM/GE [Genetically Modified/ Genetically Engineered] foods are [not] in any way different from other foods” and went so far as to suggest that mandatory GMO labeling elsewhere in the world could confuse the consumer and should be prohibited.

That the United States insisted that labeling criteria in other countries could be misleading, despite the fact that voluntary GMO notification is permitted within its own borders, constituted a stunning overreach that alarmed consumer and food safety watchdogs across the country. A broad coalition of more than 80 agricultural groups, policy wonks, farmers’ collectives and food activists–among them familiar names like Lundberg Family Farms, theCenter for Media and Democracy and Ithaca, New York’s famed Moosewood Restaurant–submitted a letter to FDA and USDA reps decrying the draft policy:

The current draft US Codex position [says] that mandatory labeling of food as GE/GM ‘is likely to create the impression that the labeled food is in some way different’ and would therefore be ‘false, misleading or deceptive.’ [...] We find it hard to understand how FDA and USDA can argue to Codex that mandatory labeling is inherently false and misleading, but voluntary labeling, which is permitted in the United States, is not. We are, in fact, concerned that the current US position appears to seek to establish precedents at Codex that would make it difficult to label food as non-GM in the US.

As the Monsantos and Cargills of the world continue to parry demands for mandatory GM labeling and rebuff notions that GM products are problematic to human and environmental health, you would be excused for suspecting the FDA and USDA were lobbying on behalf of agribusiness, rather than the public whom they where chartered to protect. The 64th session of the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius will be called to order in Geneva, Switzerland on June 29th. Labeling standards proposed for adoption appear on the official agenda.

The Agriculture Department will approve for broad use tomorrow a genetically modified soybean engineered to contain healthier oils, the opening salvo in a biotech oil fight between DuPont Co. and its rival, Monsanto Co.

The high-oleic soybean, developed by DuPont and pending deregulation since 2006, is one of the first in a wave of bioengineered cash crops that are being altered for nutritional purposes. Currently, nearly all biotech crops grown in the United States have been altered for resistance to weedkiller or insects, traits that are rarely felt by consumers or commercial businesses.

The USDA deregulation is the “final step” in the approval process for Dupont’s soybean, which has already been approved in Canada and Mexico, said Bridget Anderson, a spokeswoman for Pioneer Hi-Bred, DuPont’s biotech seed business. The crop and its oil will continue commercial testing this year and should be ready for global use by 2012, she added.

The USDA approval is also the first play in a coming oil war between DuPont and Monsanto.

Currently, Monsanto has two varieties of biotech soybeans pending approval with USDA that also seek to modify the nutritional value of soybean oil, promising to eliminate trans fats and produce oil with omega-3 fatty acid — fish oil — for use in yogurt, granola bars and spreads.

The modified soybeans represent a move by DuPont and Monsanto to broaden the crop traits engineered in their seeds beyond simple properties like pest resistance to complex areas — like nutritional value, drought tolerance and nitrogen fixation — that are often influenced by multiple genes. These long-promised traits previously found little purchase in the seed giant’s business plans.

It is “pretty exciting science,” said Rob Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer. Leveraging improvements in breeding and biotechnology, he said, seed giants like Monsanto “can start to take on some of the most complex physiological traits in terms of crop quality and health and nutrition.”

DuPont’s biotech soybean could be welcome news for soy farmers, who have seen food companies move away from standard soybean oil as they work to eliminate trans fats, which are linked to coronary health risks, from their ingredients. It is a difficult shift. The industry uses about 6 billion pounds of the oil each year, all of which contained trans fats.

The biotech soy will provide a stable oil alternative that can be used without hydrogenation, the process that creates trans fats, DuPont said. The oil has already been tested successfully for snack food preparation for frying or spraying, according to DuPont.

Notably, the engineered soybeans have been created through a different process than most biotech crops on the market, which contain splices of bacterial genes to grant herbicide or pest resistance. Instead, DuPont scientists “silenced” the expression of a gene in the fatty acid pathways of the soybean seeds. Few commercial biotech crops have used gene silencing so far, with a virus-resistant papaya in Hawaii being a notable exception.

Widespread adoption of DuPont or Monsanto’s next-generation soybeans, which would also include traits for weedkiller or pest resistance, would be unlikely to shift the soy crop further toward bioengineering, simply because there is little room for expansion: More than 90 percent of the U.S. soybean crop is already genetically engineered.

Products produced with DuPont’s high-oleic soybeans are unlikely to hit the market until 2012 at the latest, as the company awaits import approval for the crops from the European Union and other important exports markets, the company said.

(NaturalNews) The Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to downplay the risks of genetically modified alfalfa, a crop previously banned by numerous federal courts.

In 2007, a federal court rejected the Bush USDA’s approval of alfalfa plants genetically engineered for resistance to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. The court ruled that the USDA had not properly considered the risks posed by the crop. These risks included the possibility that the genetically modified (GM) crops could swap genetic material with related species, thus contaminating neighboring fields or producing non-agricultural “super weeds.”

Monsanto continues to appeal the decision, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against it twice. The case is now pending consideration by the Supreme Court.

Alfalfa is the first perennial crop to be genetically modified. Because it does not die after a year but can regenerate itself from even its roots, the risk of genetic contamination is higher than even that from GM annual crops, which have already been documented to spread beyond the fields they are planted in.

“Widespread [GM] contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.,” said Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association.

After Obama appointed former Monsanto executive Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, the agency released a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that continues to play down these risks.

Yet even the Monsanto-friendly EIS acknowledges that “acute toxicity … was observed” in mice that consumed GM alfalfa. It also admits that residues of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide are toxic.

“Based on upper estimates of exposure… infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate residues,” the statement reads.

Since the introduction of Roundup Ready GM crops 13 years ago, herbicide use has increased by 383 million pounds.

Sources for this story include: www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummi….

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028911_USDA_GM_crops.html#ixzz1auSCnGw1

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2010 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Food Safety is sponsoring a public meeting to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions that will be discussed at the 33rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, July 5-9, 2010.

The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., in Room 107-A, USDA, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C. To participate through teleconference for the meeting, dial (866) 692-3158, and enter the passcode 5986642.

Documents and agenda items related to the 33rd Session of the CAC will be accessible at the Codex Web site at www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.

Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

For further information about the 33rd Session of the CAC and about the public meeting, contact Barbara McNiff by mail at U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Ave. S.W., Room 4861-S, Washington, D.C. 20250, by phone at (202) 690-4719 or by fax at (202) 720-3157. Interested U.S. parties are also invited to request information about the 33rd Session of the CAC and about the public meeting, as well as submit comments about the 33rd Session of the CAC, electronically to the following e-mail address: Barbara.McNiff@fsis.usda.gov.

Written comments on the public meeting may be offered at the meeting or sent by e-mail to the U.S. Delegate for the 33rd Session of the CAC, Karen Stuck, U.S. Codex Manager, at USCodex@fsis.usda.gov. Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 33rd session of the CAC.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291475#ixzz1augREjSz

The U.S Supreme Court yesterday questioned the authority of a lower court to ban “roundup ready alfalfa” (RRA), in the high-profile case of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson SeedFarms. Roundup Ready alfalfa seed is genetically modified to resist the herbicide called Roundup. The case is more about the legality of the ban than the safety of RRA plants and is being closely watched by all sectors of food and agri-business, and by environmental organizations.

In 2005 the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) approved the planting of RRA. In 2007 the Center for Food Safety took the issue to U.S. District Court in San Francisco which banned the alfalfa until a comprehensive EIS (Environmental Impact Study), required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), could be carried out.

Monsanto Co. and petitioner Forage Genetics Inc. (FGI) made claim in Supreme Court that the district court’s ban was unlawful because the court did not seek to determine evidence of future harm due to RRA, implying that a NEPA violation alone is grounds for a ban. Monsanto argued that the injunction caused undue financial harm to farmers, and in courtdocuments the petition argued that the actual risk of cross-pollination from GE alfalfa is “exceedingly small.”

Organic food producers and environmental groups say that RRA will cause widespread environmental and economic damage. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other flying insects and it is only a matter of time before cross-pollination occurs. Food with GE genes cannot be considered organic and cross-pollination with modified alfalfa would cause great damage to the organic food market, according to the groups.

The Center for Food Safety cited seven briefs submitted in support of Geertson, by over two dozen natural food companies and producers, as well as by the Natural ResourcesDefense Counsel, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Humane Society.

Monsanto said 18 entities submitted briefs to support its position that RRA should not be banned. They are the American Farm Bureau Federation, Biotechnology Industry Organization, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council and National Potato Council, Sugarbeet Growers Association, U.S. Beet Sugar Association and National Corn Growers Association, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Home Builders, and CropLife America, The Washington Legal Foundation, Allied EducationFoundation, and Pacific Legal Foundation, according to a Monsanto news release.

The case may become a moot point if the USDA passes regulation, now under consideration, that would require all bio-engineered plants undergo a thorough environmental impact statement.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision before late June.

Don’t believe Monsanto’s green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren’t meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming – they’re designed to sell Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and the patented “Roundup Ready” genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

During the Bush administration, the movement to stop GMOs was making progress. Reflecting public concern over GMOs, in 2007, a Federal court ruled that the Bush USDA’s approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa violated the law because it failed to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the development of “super-weeds.” The court banned the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They’re taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!

Barack Obama, despite promising us “change we can believe in,” is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named “Biotech Governor of the Year” in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto’s patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely risking their health; since even the USDA’s EIS admits that, “acute toxicity in mice was observed.”

According to the EIS, consumers who ingest foods with residues of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide may experience “general and non-specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate includ[ing] changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), liver pathology, and weight of the pituitary gland.”

The EIS warns that, “Based on upper estimates of exposure … infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] residues.”

Consuming milk and meat from animals fed crops that are genetically engineered is also risky. In Europe, where farmer and consumer rejection has kept GMO crop acreage to a bare minimum, massive quantities of GMO-tainted animal feed is imported from the U.S. and a survey of 60 samples of 12 different milk brands sold in stores in Italy demonstrated the presence of GM maize sequences in 15 (25%) and of GM soybean sequences in 7 samples (11.7%).

Most consumers, especially organic consumers, are determined to avoid Roundup Ready alfalfa, and meat and dairy products derived from animals ingesting Roundup Ready alfalfa, but according to the EIS, we don’t have that right because, “At the present time, there is no policy regarding the unintended presence of GE (genetically engineered) material in organic products or food, consistent with the fact that the NOP (National Organic Program) is a process-based program for certifying a farm or production system as organic, and not a product-based program that tests or certifies individual products as organic.”

We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The “change we believe in” is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.

Follow Ronnie Cummins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OrganicConsumer

source: huffingtonpost.com