1.GMO Labeling Efforts Change Course After California Defeat
2.Boycott Organic and 'Natural' Brands that Helped Defeat Prop 37
3.Cincinnati Passes Resolution Requiring GM Food Labeling
4.Obama Official Comments on Administration's GMO Labeling Stance
5.After GMO Labeling Shot Down, Citizens Start Labeling Themselves

EXTRACT: "We are going to have to come to grips with this. Every major trading partner we deal with has labeling. Labeling... is not a question of whether, but when." (item 1)

"It's time to send these companies a message: Either start supporting GMO labeling initiatives, including the upcoming one in Washington State, or consumers will stop buying your products." (item 2)

According to [Obama Administration Cabinet Secretary Christopher Lu], Obama is still for GMO labeling but hasn't gotten around to addressing the problem yet... he is "passionate" about the promise to label GMOs he made on the campaign trail, and... respects peoples' "Right to Know". (item 4)

Activists and concerned citizens around the world have had enough with corrupt corporations censoring their right to know what's in their food, and frankly they're beyond upset. And if the government will not side with the 90 plus percentage of consumers who are in favor of GMO labeling, then they are going to do it themselves. (item 5)
---
---
1.GMO Labeling Efforts Change Course After California Defeat
Carey Gillam and Lisa Baertlein
Reuters, November 9 2012
 http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/11/gmo-labeling-efforts-change-course-after-california-defeat/

The failure on Tuesday of a California ballot initiative that would have mandated labeling of genetically modified foods is not a death knell for those seeking nationwide labeling, U.S. labeling proponents said.

President Barack Obama's re-election could be a boost, as he is seen, in general terms, as being supportive of labeling. Still, efforts to force change at a federal level could face an uphill climb.

"The federal effort is a monumental task without a state victory somewhere," said Michele Simon, a public health attorney from California.

New state labeling initiatives are planned for Washington state and Oregon. Beyond that, the action now shifts to Washington, D.C. and efforts to force change at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has primary regulatory oversight for food and food additives.

A citizen's petition is pending with the agency demanding a re-examination of its policy against labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. More than one million people signed on, the most ever for a petition to the FDA, and backers say the effort has been aided by the publicity surrounding the California initiative.

"When we first filed our petition with the FDA over a year ago … it was only a handful of Washington insiders who fully understood what we were talking about," said Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company, and chairman of the "Just Label It" campaign. "Now average folks are well educated on this issue."

Supporters of the federal labeling action include organic and natural food companies, environmental and consumer groups.

The petition, filed in October 2011, is the first step in a strategy that could lead to a federal lawsuit against the FDA, said Andrew Kimbrell, the lead attorney with the Center for Food Safety, who wrote the legal petition.

Kimbrell said passage of the California measure would have provided leverage for the federal effort. Its 53 percent to 47 percent defeat in progressive California was a setback, but the legal strategy with the FDA does not depend on state passage.

Rather, CFS hopes to prove that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, dating back to 1938, is being too narrowly interpreted by FDA and treats modern-day GMO technology in a way that does not comply with the intent of the law to protect consumers.

Genetically modified crops, which have had their DNA spliced with genetic material from other species, have been around for 16 years. Popular biotech crops can survive treatments of weedkiller and are toxic to insects that feed on the crops. And most processed foods sold in the United States contain some GMO corn, soybeans or other crops.

The CFS petition calls on the FDA to declare that molecular or genetic alterations are "material" changes relevant to consumers. The FDA's current policy, set in 1992, holds that foods derived from genetically modified plants were substantially equivalent to those produced through conventional means.

"The combination of FDA's failure to mandate pre-market safety testing and its permissive labeling policy has meant that silent changes to our food supply are tested on the public without their knowledge," the petition alleges.

FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky said the agency was evaluating the petition and will respond, but declined to comment further.

The California labeling measure failed in part after an onslaught of opposition led by Monsanto Co, the world's largest seed company and the developer of much of the world’s genetically modified seed technology.

Campaign finance reports show Monsanto and almost 80 food companies and biotechnology advocates, including PepsiCo and DuPont, spent roughly $46 million to turn back the California effort. They argued that GMO food products are proven safe, and labeling would add unnecessary costs and regulation.

They make a similar argument against any federal labeling mandate, saying the FDA’s view that no labeling is needed is proper.

"New biotech foods are appropriately tested for safety," said Karen Batra, spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents the interests of the biotech seed industry. "No crops are commercialized without USDA and FDA review."

That position frustrates many in the scientific community, who say the industry and regulators are disregarding numerous studies showing harmful impacts from GMO crops.

In a letter published in October in the Independent Science News, more than 70 scientists, academic researchers and professors said that "corporate influence" was stifling research that finds negative implications connected with GMOs.

"We are going to have to come to grips with this. Every major trading partner we deal with has labeling," said Hirshberg. "Labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when."
---
---
2.Organic Consumers Association Calls for Boycott of Organic & 'Natural' Brands that Helped Defeat Prop 37
OCA, November 19 2012
 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/11/prweb10141809.htm

[See also the graphic with: Corporations Stab Organic Consumers in the Back — Familiar Brands Funding Attack and Consumers Right to GMO Labeling  http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/ ]

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today called for a national boycott of the popular natural and organic brands owned by 10 parent companies that donated to defeat Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative.

The OCA is also calling on other consumer protection groups, and public health, agriculture, natural health, environmental and political groups to urge their members and supporters to participate in the boycott.

"Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling popular organic and 'natural' brands," said Ronnie Cummins, Director of the OCA and the Organic Consumers Fund, which donated more than $1 million to the YES on 37 campaign. "It's time to send these companies a message: Either start supporting GMO labeling initiatives, including the upcoming one in Washington State, or consumers will stop buying your products," Cummins said.

Prop 37 was narrowly defeated on Nov. 6, thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the food companies that helped to defeat the measure were:

*PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic

*Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature

*Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):"O" Organics

*Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla

*General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar

*Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt's Organic, Lightlife, Alexia

*Kellogg's (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger

*Smucker's (Donated $555k ): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic

*Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s

*Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

The OCA's million-plus network of consumers, along with the 5 million Californians who voted YES on 37 and the 90% of consumers nationwide who want mandatory GMO labeling, are gearing up for the next GMO labeling battles, in Washington State, Vermont, and Connecticut. The boycott is part of a strategy to force the parent companies of organic and natural brands to side with consumers, or risk losing their brand loyalty.
---
---
3.Cincinnati Passes Resolution Requiring GE Food Labeling
Food & Water Watch, November 16 2012
 http://ecowatch.org/2012/cincinnati-ge-food-labeling/

Yesterday, the city of Cincinnati became the first in Ohio to pass a resolution to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, citing that consumers should have the right to know what is in their food. The consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch brought the resolution to city council as a part of their “Let Me Decide” campaign to make GE labeling the law. GE foods have not been fully tested for their impacts on human health and the environment.

Alison Auciello, Ohio-based organizer for Food & Water Watch said, “genetically engineered foods are potentially unsafe, and consumers should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to eat GE foods. It took regulation to get food processors to label ingredients and nutrition facts on labels, and now we’re calling for federal lawmakers to require the labeling of GE food.”

The majority of processed foods are genetically engineered, but unlike fat, sodium and sugar content, labels do not disclose which foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Biotechnology companies submit their own safety-testing data, and independent research is limited on GE foods because licensing agreements that control the use of patented seeds prohibit cultivation for research purposes.

Genetically engineered foods are made by inserting the genetic material from one organism into another to achieve a desired characteristic such as resistance to herbicides or pesticides. Roundup Ready varieties of corn, for example, are engineered to withstand treatment with the Roundup herbicide. But, the unintended consequence of increased use of herbicides has been a rise in “superweeds”, aggressive weed species like ragweed and pigweed that have become immune to Roundup.

Cincinnati Council Member and resolution co-sponsor Wendell Young said, “this is about transparency, about ensuring that people can make informed choices about what they feed themselves and their families. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food, especially until we know for certain whether genetically engineered foods are truly safe.”

Some of the independent research that has been conducted on biotech crops has revealed troubling health implications, including deteriorating liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development. However, the Food and Drug Administration has no way to track adverse health effects in people consuming GE foods, and because there is no requirement for labeling GE ingredients, consumers don’t know when they are eating them.

“As consumers, we have a fundamental right to know about the safety of the food we’re eating,” said Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, who co-sponsored the resolution. “With so much still unknown about the long-term risks of genetically-engineered products to our health and the environment, labeling of these foods is just common sense.”
---
---
4.Obama Official Comments on Administration's GMO Labeling Stance
Nicholas Tomasi
Natural Independent, November 19 2012
 http://www.deathrattlesports.com/archives/9798/

The stance of the Barack Obama administration on genetically modified foods (GMOs) has been under great scrutiny for many years, and it’s been a rollercoaster ride to be sure.

Obama of course famously promised to label genetically modified foods in an emphatic speech on the campaign trail, but that promise has of course not come to fruition. [www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/37-labeling/13974]

Obama didn't stop there, however.

He actually did a 180 on the issue, making GMO freedom and transparency activists quite upset when he announced appointments of former top Monsanto executives Tom Vilsack and Michael Taylor to two of the highest food system posts in the United States.

Now, instead of labeling foods made from GMO crops, which have been linked to many health defects ranging from cancer to organ damage, and which cross contaminate other conventional and organic crops through pollination, the GMO approval process for new crops has been fast-tracked leading many to worry about the future of clean, natural food in the United States.

Despite petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures aimed at gaining labeling or other benefits to rein in the rampant growth of GMOs, Obama’s administration has been tight-lipped on the issue.

On October 31, Obama Administration Cabinet Secretary Christopher Lu visited the University of Pennsylvania for an event titled “Moving America Forward,” which was attended and organized by a diverse group of student organizations.

One student was able ask Lu a question about genetically modified foods, one that may shed light on the Obama Administration’s stance on GMOs going forward.

Obama Official Comments on GMOs at University

The student, who is a member of the group GMO Free USA on Facebook, said that she approached Lu after his talk and posed the question of whether Obama would finally act on his promise regarding GMOs if he were to be reelected a week later, which of course came true.

According to Lu, Obama is still for GMO labeling but hasn’t gotten around to addressing the problem yet.

He told the student that he is “passionate” about the promise to label GMOs he made on the campaign trail, and that he respects peoples’ “Right to Know,” the slogan that of course took center stage in the pro-GMO labeling campaign in California this month (one that was defeated with nearly $50 million worth of lies from the nation’s biggest pesticide/GMO and junk food companies).

According to Lu, he made a visit to Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company prominently featured in the popular film “Food, Inc.” in order to learn more about the California Prop 37 vote and the GMO labeling situation.

Lu said that the situation is taking time because it’s a “complicated process” and they are still in the middle of figuring out the “science behind labeling,” since GMOs are so widespread. For example, they are in corn products where they’re essentially omnipresent in the United States, which produces mass volumes of corn.

Ultimately, it’s the people’s right, Lu assured, and they’re working on it.

Obama and GMOs: Is there still hope?

While it’s a nice bonus to hear from Lu that the Obama Adminstration is supposedly taking GMO concerns seriously, it’s hard to trust them at this point after the dubious appointments of Taylor and Vilsack.

The GMO issue is getting out of hand and time is of the essence, yet Obama and co. continue to drag their feet on what should be a simple item. Over 90% of people say they want GMOs labeled according to national polls and the movement is clearly strong both here and abroad.

Michelle Obama’s organic garden won’t be able to feed the United States when virtually all of the crops (apples, spinach, wheat and even “Agent Orange corn” are all said to be in development or simply awaiting approval) become genetically modified. And instead of at least taking a recent French study showing tumors in rats fed GM corn seriously enough to finally order long term testing, the Obama Administration and his appointed Monsanto shills have merely turned a blind eye yet again.

Perhaps Obama and co. are merely stalling in order to sneak more varieties in, making co-existence virtually impossible. With Monsanto so firmly entrenched in government, that seems to be quite possible.

For now, however, the people still have a chance to put an end to the madness. Dozens of states are now considering ballot measures such as the one in California that was handed a close defeat (despite allegations of mass fraud and millions of uncounted votes).

The truth can't stay hidden for long, and whether Obama decides to help label GMOs or not, the people’s movement will continue and only grow in numbers.
---
---
5.After GMO Labeling Shot Down, Citizens Start Labeling Themselves
Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society, 17 November 2012
 http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/14584

Activists and concerned citizens around the world have had enough with corrupt corporations censoring their right to know what's in their food, and frankly they're beyond upset. And if the government will not side with the 90 plus percentage of consumers who are in favor of GMO labeling, then they are going to do it themselves.

As it turns out, many are doing just that through the 'DIY' GMO labeling campaign known as 'The Label It Yourself Campaign'. Sporting a skull with cornstalks for crossbones, the DIY labels inform customers as to whether or not a product 'may' include GMO ingredients or most certainly does.

Below is one label taken from the campaign website that activists are now placing on products found in grocery stores, homes of friends and family (to incite discussion), and just about everywhere else: [see it at  http://labelityourself.org/liy/]

People Will Not Stand for Corporate Food Lies Any Longer

With 80% or more of many staple crops like corn and soybeans already genetically modified, there is a large chance that most products containing these ingredients (or deriviatives) does indeed contain GMOs. Even more so for highly processed high-fructose corn syrup and other harmful ingredients which are arguably modified 100% of the time. You can print out the labels from the campaign website and stick them on products for yourself.

With a lack of real GMO labeling thanks to dirty tricks by pro-GMO groups like No on 37, grassroots initiatives are the only methods of alerting the public to what they are putting into their mouths. Pro-GMO campaigns have impersonated and illegally used the FDA seal, posed as phony cop and democrat groups, and poured more than $45 million into keeping consumers into the dark.

Now, citizens are fighting back through peaceful grassroots initiatives. As a picture from one Treehugger blog shows, consumers are honestly labeling processed foods across the shelves of international grocers.
 http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/label-it-yourself-gmo-labeling-goes-diy.html

As for the legal aspect? The Label It Yourself Campaign states:

"At the moment, the law protects misinformation and private property above truth-telling, and public well-being…"

Meanwhile, corporations like Monsanto continue to pump out GMOs that have been time and time again linked to disease, environmental disaster, and even the center of 'slave labor' issues. 
 http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-abusing-illegal-workers-in-slave-like-conditions/

When government legislation is shot down through corruption, it becomes a grassroots responsibility to take action and make a real change.