The monarch is the canary in the cornfield, a harbinger of environmental change that we’ve brought about on such a broad scale that many species of pollinators are now at risk if we don’t take action to protect them,” said Brower, who has published hundreds of scientific studies on monarchs.
What happens when weeds and insects evolve into superweeds and superbugs? And refuse to die when doused with Monsanto’s toxic poisons?
Enter Monsanto’s dump “More On” Strategy.
More herbicides. More insecticides. Each one more toxic than the next.
I have always believed that consumers hold the key to ending Monsanto’s “Moron Strategy.”
We do it by forcing states to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. Which in turn will force Big Food to replace GMO ingredients with non-GMO alternatives.
Can you help us raise another $165,000 by September 15, to support critical GMO labeling campaigns in November in Oregon, Colorado and other states? Details on how to donate online, by phone or by email here.
It isn’t just Monsanto that’s escalating the “Moron Strategy.”
Dow’s new GMO corn and soy varieties are engineered to withstand massive amounts of a new herbicide concocted from a combination of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and 2,4-D, one of the chemicals used in the deadly Vietnam-era “Agent Orange” herbicide.
The EPA has already approved the new “Deadly Duo” herbicide. And the USDA—over the objections of more than 50 members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of citizens—is expected any day now to approve the crops it will be sprayed on.
Why approve this new “Deadly Duo?” Because the millions of pounds of glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicides already being sprayed on GMO crops aren’t working anymore.
It would be great if the FDA and USDA would protect consumers from the madness of Monsanto’s “Moron” Strategy.
But instead, our government agencies are intent on protecting only one thing: corporate profits.
In fact last year, the FDA actually raised the limit of glyphosate residue allowed on your fruits and vegetables—despite several new studies exposing glyphosate’s toxicity.
According to one of those studies, glyphosate is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”
Only a moron would want to use more, not less, of the “most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment,” right?
Your donation will help us keep the movement to push for state GMO labeling laws strong. Please help us reach our goal of $250,000 by September 15. Click here for details on how to donate online, or by phone or email.
National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund
P.S. Funds donated directly to campaigns must be raised through the Organic Consumers Fund, our allied 501(c)4 lobbying arm. If you need to make a tax-deductible donation, please donate to our 501(c)3 nonprofit. Your donation will indirectly support our GMO bans and labeling law campaigns by funding our ongoing education and media work.
In 2013, the United Nations announced that the world's agricultural needs can be met with localized organic farms. That's right, we do not need giant monocultures that pour, spray and coat our produce with massive amounts of poisons, only to create mutant pests and weeds while decimating pollinators and harming human health. Don't believe the hype: We do not need genetically modified foods "to feed the world."
Government has gotten too big and we need to become more local, so the needs of the people are meet and not those of corporations, looking only for profit.
Look into the history of Monsanto and see the crimes against humanity, they have committed.
Why are their Monsanto corporate men, in the FDA, in the Supreme Court etc.
There is too much conflict of interest in our government, which serves the corporations, instead of it's citizen's.
Vote, with each dollar you spend, do not buy GMO anything.
There is an Oxford-style debate on GMOs hosted by Intelligence Squared in NYC, December 3rd, 2014. It will be live-streamed online. The reception starts at 5:45 PM PST and the debate is from 6:45-8:30 PM PST (with audience voting before and after the debate).
Robert Fraley (Monsanto EVP) and Alison Van Eenennaam (Researcher, UC Davis) are arguing in support of GMOs, and Charles Benbrook (Ctr for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources) and Margaret Mellon (Union of Concerned Scientists) are arguing against the motion.
Aside from watching here's a very important component to the debate: AUDIENCE VOTING.
That's right, YOU can voice your opinion about GMOs by voting and you can cast your first vote now!
The debate polls both the online and the in-studio audience before and after the debate. The winning side of the debate is the side that has changed the mind of the greatest percent of the audience.
For example, if Side A starts the debate with 30% support and Side B starts the debate with 55% support (15% undecided), and at the conclusion of the debate, Side A now has 40% support and Side B has 60% support, Side A is the winner. Although Side B has a greater % of support overall, Side A has increased their % by a greater amount and thus wins.
NOTE ON STRATEGY - The audience polling is extremely important to the outcome of the debate, as the audience polls are recorded online and presented alongside an archived copy of the debate.
It's possible to purposely skew the debate results by appearing to be on one side and then throwing support behind one side or the other at the debate's conclusion, so it's essential that we get as many non-GMO supporters to watch and participate as possible to hold results accountable.
We hope you will watch the debate and vote!
You can read more and watch the debate here
In this together!
SAFE eating begins with INFORMED eating!
The small but mighty IRT team!
A new study, published in the Journal of Organic Systems, concludes (not for the first time, we might add), that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is likely to have something to do with the fact that over the past 20 years, we’ve seen “an alarming” increase in serious illnesses in the U.S. Not to mention a marked decrease in life expectancy.
The authors of the study, who include Andre Leu, president of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), point out the direct correlation between the introduction of Roundup and increases in diabetes, cardiovascular disease, strokes, neurological diseases, obesity, asthma, behavior and learning problems, and chronic disease in children and young adults.
Coincidence? The scientists are clear that correlation does not necessarily equate with causation. But at the very least, they say, we should be taking a long, hard look at whether or not Roundup is making us sick.
Why isn’t that happening, despite this new study and the many that have come before it?
One reporter summed it up this way: “And as a scientist unconnected with Dr Swanson and her co-authors told GMWatch, if the issue of GM crops and their associated pesticides were not such a political and economic 'hot potato', such a rapid escalation in disease in a population would be investigated as an emergency priority.”
Technically, we lost. By about 800 votes. A fraction of a percentage point.
But we’ll never really know. Because this week, a judge in Oregon ruled against a lawsuit filed this week by our YES on 92 Campaign. The suit would have required the state to count the 4600 votes that election officials threw out—because they said the signatures on the ballot envelopes didn’t match the signatures on the voters’ registration cards.
Monsanto and Big Food will claim victory.
What they won’t say is that it took a record-breaking $20.7 million of advertising, intended to misinform and confuse voters, for them to buy this “victory.”
On the very day the judge denied voters in Oregon the right to have their votes counted, the pesticide and junk food makers were buying up seats on Capitol Hill, to make the case that no state should be allowed to pass a law requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.
They are doing everything in their power to hide the truth about the toxic food they are producing, and the poisons they are unleashing into our environment.
Just as we will continue to do everything in our power to expose their dirty, toxic secrets.
The fact is, they are losing. Vermont has passed a solid, enforceable GMO labeling law. Sales of organics continue to outpace sales of their GMO junk food. Companies like Coca-Cola and General Mills are struggling. Last week Hershey's announced it will remove genetically engineered high fructose corn syrup from its brand-name products. The United Nations has declared that small farmers, not Monsanto, will feed the world.
Thank you to everyone who helped fight this battle in Oregon. Let the boycotts of those companies that continue to fund anti-labeling, pro-GMO campaigns, continue!
My 2 cents: I am going to voice the obvious, trying to get GMO's labeled, is bringing this issue, to the American people.
People will and are voting with their purchasing power and we will eventually win because GMO's are not sustainable, they create super weeds, need more pesticides and create health issues. As the people become more informed and stop buying products with GMO's, they will influence the corporations as they see their profits decline and then they will stop using GMO's. We see this happening already.
Last edited by Rachel; December 12th, 2014 at 10:53 AM.
The following user says Thank You to Rachel for this post: