Following an explosive and controversial French study indicating a link between Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered corn and cancer, Russian authorities have suspended all imports and use of GMO corn.
And it's not just Russia that's appalled by what's been learned. The French government asked European authorities to "take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as emergency suspension of imports" of GM corn in the entire European Union.
All 15 nations in the European Union already require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, and many countries in Europe restrict or ban the planting of genetically engineered crops. But U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that the U.S. government has been conspiring to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use GM seeds, by engaging in aggressive trade wars against reluctant nations.
The cables showed that the U.S. government, working with biotech firms, has planned to "retaliate" against those who attempted to stop the spread of GM crops. They recommended causing "pain" in the EU and to be prepared for a prolonged battle.
The U.S. is far and away the world's driving political and agricultural force behind GMOs in the food supply, but even here change is on the horizon. Surveys find that 91 percent of the American public supports the labeling of genetically engineered foods, and that 53 percent of Americans in 2009 said they would choose non-GMO brands if labels gave them a choice.
Monsanto is terrified that the "right to know" through labeling of GMOs could well be a tipping point.
On November 6, Californians will vote on the "right to know" ballot initiative (Proposition 37), which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods in the Golden State.
Because labeling in California would likely lead to labeling nationwide, the stakes are high. Monsanto and the biotech industry are spending many tens of millions of dollars trying to fight Proposition 37 with what many observers call pseudo-studies and scare tactics. But so far, voters aren't buying it. More than two-thirds of California's voters in a recent LA Times poll said they support Proposition 37.
Organizers around the world are rallying around California's Proposition 37 as a point of leverage in the world's GMO struggle. Meanwhile, concern is growing that Monsanto's virtual stranglehold on federal government policy could lead to federal interference if Proposition 37 does pass.
That's why the Food Revolution Network, in partnership with Care2 and its 20 million members, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and many other organizations, has launched a major national petition calling on the U.S. Congress to mandate strong and effective labeling of genetically engineered foods. In an election year, the petition is calling for members of Congress to side with their constituents, instead of with the short-term economic interests of the biotech industry.
Sign the petition here.
Can Americans win the right to know? The stakes are high, but so, too, is the opportunity to make a difference. We're at a turning point that will impact the lives of billions of people now and for generations to come.
Can a company as powerful as Monsanto be stopped? Here are short and extremely powerful statements from GMO experts John Robbins and Andrew Kimbrell on how it can be done:
Ocean Robbins is founder and co-host (with best-selling author John Robbins) of the 40,000 member Food Revolution Network, an initiative to help you heal your body, and your world... with food. Find out more and sign up here.
Still not convinced? See "10 Reasons To Avoid GMOs"
Follow Ocean Robbins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/oceanrobbins
Dave Murphy: What Will You Do for the Revolution? Prop 37, D-Day for the Food Movement
As for this bunk article; there's a good reason why the entirety of the scientific community has shunned Seralini and his band of misfits: They purposely fabricate studies to falsely show whatever their ideology tells them should be so.
Every single one of Seralini's past studies have been proven to be completely false. Every. Single. One. Even this one is now under review by the European Food Safety Authority.
-From a liberal Canadian.
If you know it is harmless, you will still buy it. If not, buy the brand without. How can you be free if you have no choices to take?
After all, you are what you eat.
science and financial rationality are finally sinking into Californians.
Perhaps californians are finally realizing farmers, both dem and rep, have united against the antiScience nonsense coming from the antiGMO crowd.
Monsanto is playing by the Big Tobacco play book; in case you don't remember, Tobacco suppressed, denied and delayed emergence of evidence of harm, and spend millions manufactured doubt-- same as the global warming deniers funded by Koch et al. The battle against transparency is motivated by fear of liability of recklessly selling dangerous products without obtaining consumers' consent. GMOs feeding the world are a decade old myth.... there is zero truth to it.
I always hate when people bring up the tobacco companies as evidence of manipulation of the scientific consensus when, actually, the scientific evidence was pretty clear. The scientific community was publishing findings as early as 1929 linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and the scientific consensus was pretty strong in favor of a link by the early 1950s.
You can complain that tobacco companies used tactics to convince the public that cigarettes were unsafe or they manipulated the medical establishment, but neither changed the scientific consensus. The fact is that there is no similar research linking GMOs to any health problem in the way that cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer.
The major problem is that then, as now, a significant majority of our country, and the world is scientifically illiterate. One simply needs to read the comments on a HP blog to come to that conclusion. They wouldn't know how to read or interpret a study, nor be able to assess what makes good research from bad research, and the media (including HP) does quite a poor job of elucidating the difference, as evidenced by this article. I'm pretty sure most people here have no read one actual research paper on GMO safety, choosing instead to only visit websites that support their beliefs (you can tell that from seeing what people post when evidence is requested).
You know that you cannot get GMO seeds and study them without permission of the GMO companies, right?
Do you believe every thing big companies tell you?
You understand the companies are legal psychopaths.
you antiScience people are having the spotlights shined on your bogus claims.
The answer is that you are displaying the exact same behavior that you claim is exhibited by pro-GMO research, simply touting that which supports your already held beliefs, rather than actually demanding that only good research be accepted as evidence. Your anti-science attitude becomes even more evident when you rely on ad hominems, propganda, and rhetoric rather than good scientific findings. In the end, you are no different from those you would rail against.
Why has Monsanto bought all the seed companies in the US if its product is better than mother natures?
Why do they need to spend $40 million to defeat an initiative for a product that claims to do so much good for the world?
Why cant they compete without lobbying our representatives to approve THEIR research.
If it smells like a rat..
How do I know what "they" put in my plate, for example in a restaurant.
when a restaurant lives from profit of course will buy the cheaper product.