Tag: storage

Rootworms are becoming resistant to Monsanto corn and that resistance apparently applies to the Syngenta corn strain as well.  What does that mean??  Those crops are not the answer as this means more pesticide must be applied to a plant that was engineered to have it’s own insecticide to deal with rootworms.  And we’re not supposed to be worried about GM crops??  For more, read this – http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121115/BUSINESS08/311150059/Bugs-damaging-Monsanto-corn-may-do-same-Syngenta-crops?odyssey=nav|head

On the heels of a political season that provided an educational opportunity on the food chain and how foods are grown, efforts continue to ensure that this awareness doesn’t fade. Here’s a look at what comes next – http://truth-out.org/news/item/12730-full-speed-ahead-for-food-movement-despite-gmo-labeling-loss

In trying to shop and eat better, finding bulk food grocers is imperative. Your standard grocer may or may not have a bulk food set, or it may be limited. Look closer and you’ll find a myriad of smaller, yet more complete specialized bulk food stores. In the northwest region of Pennsylvania you’ll find almost a dozen. Here’s a look from their regional newspaper – http://www.goerie.com/article/20121014/LIFESTYLES01/310139934/Erie-region-peppered-with-tiny-bulk-food-stores

The time is now! VOTE YES on PROP 37. Here’s a final synopsis that demonstrates the lack of integrity the opponents of Prop 37 have demonstrated. See the facts and let’s not let advertising dollars sway your thoughts. We believe you are smarter than that.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/5-unfounded-fears-about-californias-prop-37-which-would-label-genetically-modified

Many farmers were listed as opponents of the GM labeling effort in California (PROP 37) but if they really understood the contract they’ve signed when they planted Monsanto crops they might have decided differently.  Monsanto is making the farmer sign a contract that makes the farmer liable for everything related to growing, cross contamination, and injury.  Monsanto is trying to hide behind the farmers so that they can disclaim issues arising with their crops so that as more evidence comes in that GM products aren’t safe, it will be the farmers fault.  Read the facts here and if you know a farmer, please forward to them so that they can protect themselves from this.  http://truth-out.org/news/item/59

This is an important point.  Win or lose on this particular legislation (Prop 37), 90% of us still want to know what’s in our foods and we can still force the issue by choosing not to support the companies and the brands they sell that joined in the fight against.  The following article raises these questions – http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/11/will-consumers-punish-prop-37s-antagonists-boycotts/

Let’s not be punitive…simply VOTE YES on PROP 37 next Tuesday!

Dr. Mercola provides a clear breakdown of the efforts by Monsanto, Dow, etc. to mislead you with deceptive claims, paid experts, and flat out misrepresentations of fact.  Please read this article and learn how you are being deceived.  PROP 37 deserves our vote.  For you, for your kids, for this planet.  Please VOTE YES ON PROP 37.  Thank you!

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/prop_37_1029121119.html

It’s full court press time on Prop 37- Let’s just hear from the people!  Read this: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/letters-proposition/article_0dc73e15-b2fb-5605-9f1a-f3d75556bd4a.html

California Voters – Please Vote YES on PROP 37

The idea that Prop 37 will spawn lawsuits like Prop 65 did is incorrect ( though the positives of Prop 65 have outweighed some of the mistakes in the language of the legislation).  Let’s take a look at this ‘scare tactic’ that the no group is using to mislead you.  Below is a comment in response to an LA Weekly article that was substandard in its research and facts – This comment is from a consumer protection attorney in the specifics of 37’s language.

‘The remedies which the statute allow are injunctions — to stop the

false labeling — and attorney fees and costs of suit for protecting the

public. The idea that attorneys will be making millions by bogus

lawsuits is another of Ms. Stuart’s outright misrepresentation. The

consumer attorney is paid if any only if he/she is correct that there

has in fact been mislabeling.  If an attorney brings a bogus lawsuit,

then the Supreme Court has already said what the small business should

do to protect itself.  I know because I was the defense attorney who

prevailed in this case to prevent bogus toxic tort lawsuits.

 In Bockrath v Aldrich Chemical, Justice Mosk said that the attorney

may be disciplined by the State Bar and the defendant can use CCP 127.8

to shift the costs to the attorney who brings the bogus lawsuit. CCP

128.7 is quite effective for two reasons:  (1) Dishonest attorneys know

if their lawsuit is BS and thus they know that they will lose if

challenged, and (2) Dishonest attorneys are greedy and do not want to

pay the litigation costs and attorney fees for either themselves or the

defendant business which they wrongfully sued.  If the lawsuit is bogus,

it is easy to find an attorney to defend on a contingency basis —

which means the business does not have to pay up-front or pays his

lawyer only a small percentage up-front. 

 Manufacturers of carcinogens and other mega corporations out to rip

off the consumer have used this false specter of a flood of shake-down

lawsuit to stop most of California consumer protection statutes.  That

is why consumers who tried to stop the massive frauds in the home

mortgage market in 2005 and 2006 were unable to do anything. 

Irresponsible journalists like Ms. Stuart had convinced people to

decimate California’s Unfair Business Practices Law so Countrywide and

other corrupt mortgage lenders could continue to flood the international

mortgage market with defective securitized mortgages culminating in the

Crash of 2008. There are real world disasters when the public is

disarmed in the face of predatory businesses like the Koch Bros, Goldman

Sachs and Monsanto.’

See the whole story and comments here – http://www.laweekly.com/2012-10-25/news/gmo-proposition-37-backfires-little-guys/

Please share the following link with as many people as possible.  We have a right to know what is in our food.  Let’s really see what’s up with GMO’s – http://knowgmo.org/

VOTE YES ON PROP 37