Suddenly Sunday...

Finding cave paintings in Mexico

About the earthquake swarm near the Lassen Volcanic Center.... nothing to do with volcanoes.  (Rats.)

What the soldiers in the Vietnam War really thought.

Colony Collapse Disorder.

Marching against Monsanto.  Because of things like this.  And who actually owns organic products.

And because I haven't posted for a while... kittens and cats

US entertainment industry to Congress: make it legal for us to deploy rootkits, spyware, ransomware and trojans to attack pirates!

Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates

Another one bites the dust...

Whole Foods Market Caves to Monsanto

After 12 years of battling to stop Monsanto's genetically-engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's organic farmland, the biggest retailers of "natural" and "organic" foods in the U.S., including Whole Foods Market (WFM), Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farm, have agreed to stop opposing mass commercialization of GE crops, like Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa. In exchange for dropping their opposition, WFM has asked for "compensation" to be paid to organic farmers for "any losses related to the contamination of his crop." Under current laws, Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not subject to any pre-market safety testing or labeling. WFM is abandoning its fight with biotech companies in part because two thirds of the products they sell are not certified organic anyway, but are really conventional, chemical-intensive and foods that may contain GMOs and that they market as "natural" despite this. Most consumers don't know the difference between "natural" and "certified organic" products. "Natural" products can come from crops and animals fed nutrients containing GMOs. "Certified Organic" products are GMO-free. WFM and their main distributor, United Natural Foods, maximize profits by selling products labeled "natural" at premium organic prices.

Study debunks myths on organic farms

The results are in from a 30-year side-by-side trial of conventional and organic farming methods at Pennsylvania's Rodale Institute. Contrary to conventional wisdom, organic farming outperformed conventional farming in every measure.
There are about 1,500 organic farmers in Saskatchewan, at last count. They eschew the synthetic fertilizers and toxic sprays that are the mainstay of conventional farms. Study after study indicates the conventional thinking on farming - that we have to tolerate toxic chemicals because organic farming can't feed the world - is wrong.
In fact, studies like the Rodale trials (www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years) show that after a three-year transition period, organic yields equalled conventional yields. What is more, the study showed organic crops were more resilient. Organic corn yields were 31 per cent higher than conventional in years of drought.
These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically modified (GM) "drought tolerant" varieties, which showed increases of only 6.7 per cent to 13.3 per cent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.
More important than yield, from the farmer's perspective, is income, and here organic is clearly superior. The 30-year comparison showed organic systems were almost three times as profitable as the conventional systems. The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for.
But even without a price premium, the Rodale study found organic systems are competitive with the conventional systems because of marginally lower input costs.

It puts to shame Monsanto and RoundUp and all the other Big Ag companies poisoning our food and our water.

Stop the sneak attack on GMO food labeling!

Credo Action:

If the U.S. government has its way, a powerful intergovernmental group you've probably never heard of may soon prevent anyone anywhere from labeling genetically modified (GMO) food.

Operated by the United Nations, the Codex Alimentarius is a collection of guidelines, codes and recommendations regarding food safety and labeling standards used by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to settle international disputes regarding food and agricultural export agreements.

According to draft language circulated by the FDA, the U.S. will oppose a proposal at an upcoming meeting of an important Codex committee that would allow the labeling of genetically engineered food. Consumers Union and more than 80 family farm, public health, environmental and organic food organizations have raised concerns that the U.S. position will create major problems for American producers who want to label their products as "GMO-free."

Unfortunately, rather than taking a proactive stance on GMO labeling and standing up for the rights of American citizens, the Obama administration has incorporated pre-existing Bush administration positions, stating that Codex should not "suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods."

Leading national food policy experts believe this position directly contradicts USDA Organic standards, which prohibit the use of genetically engineered products. If adopted, the Obama administration's proposal might not only weaken organic standards, but could also lead to further genetic contamination of U.S. organic crops, the fastest and most profitable segement of agriculture today.

Even worse, the current U.S. draft position paper declares that mandatory labeling laws such as they have in Europe are "false, misleading or deceptive." If the U.S. succeeds in writing the proposed Codex regulations, any attempts here in the U.S. to label foods as genetically engineered, whether voluntary or by law, would become far more difficult.

This extreme position on genetically engineered food is unacceptable.

Join CREDO Action in calling on the US delegation to the Codex Committee meeting, led by representatives of the FDA and USDA, to drop these positions and support proposals to allow countries to make their own decisions on the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Sign the petition.

Monsanto and your food

ACT TODAY! Or Kiss Your Organics Goodbye!

After years of bureaucratic wrangling, a recent USDA environmental review may finally approve Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa. If approved, GMO alfalfa will fundamentally undermine the entire organic industry overnight. In addition, the USDA says Americans consumers don't care about the contamination of organics. ACT TODAY: comments are due by close of business Wednesday, March 3rd.

Please join us in calling on Secretary Vilsack to stand up for organic family farmers and reject approval of Monsanto's GMO alfalfa by signing this petition.

And or here:

During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa by convincing regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In response to a lawsuit by consumer groups, the courts then stepped in and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA followed the law.

In December, the USDA released its belated review of Monsanto's GE alfalfa seed and determined that Monsanto's alfalfa met the Obama Administration's standards, despite the risk of organic contamination.

This conclusion came despite the acknowledgment by USDA researchers that GE alfalfa is virtually certain to "contaminate" normal seeds. Cross-contamination is the number one concern with genetically engineered crops.

Organic contamination is devastating for organic farmers, especially organic dairy farmers, most of whom use organic alfalfa for feed. The presence of even the smallest amount of GE material can cause a farm to lose its organic certification. And court documents indicate that early plantings of GE alfalfa did contaminate conventional alfalfa. Yet the USDA maintains that Monsanto's existing safety protocols are good enough. This is ridiculous!

Even worse, the USDA concluded that the possibility of contamination of organic fields is of no concern, since consumers won't care if their organic food or milk contains genetically engineered components. Yet central to the definition of the USDA Organic label is the total absence of genetically modified ingredients. An overwhelming majority of consumers buy organic to avoid GE products and would be shocked to learn the USDA is so cavalier about the risks of transgenetic contamination.

The USDA is accepting public comments on Monsanto's application through Wednesday, March 3. Make your voice heard today.

Something that I've wondered about

You obviously have to accept on faith the organic food you're buying is actually organic.

California Liquid Fertilizer has been spiking its fertilizer with ammonium sulfate for the last several years, affecting the organic status of many farms, including organic behemoth Earthbound Farms.

It's a pretty epic story. The revelation that the fertilizer merchant (feel free to suggest better terms in the comments) was using non-kosher ingredients came from a former employee, who alleged that the company has been using ammonium sulfate since 1999. Inspectors confirmed the taint in 2005, even intercepting train cars of ammonium sulfate, but the California government didn't take action for several months, as the E. Coli in spinach outbreak consumed attention. In 2007, another organic fertilizer pulled its fertilizer, and another similar announcement is apparently coming soon.

Synthetic fertilizers were substituted because they cost less than 5% of the price of organic fertilizers. Yes, substituting a cheap ingredient for the more expensive, labeled ingredient usually goes over well.

Sounds like China, doesn't it? I guess greed is universal and lying is automatic....

Another well, duh!

A study has found that organic tomatoes are better for you than those hard pink gassed 'tomatoes' you try not to buy in the grocery store. This study took ten years.

Is organic food healthier for you, after all? A 10-year study comparing organic tomatoes with those grown conventionally suggests that it may be. It's the kind of evidence that pro-organic groups have been desperate to dig up, as most studies have suggested otherwise.

According to the new findings, levels of the flavonoids quercetin and kaempferol were found to be on average 79 and 97 per cent higher, respectively, in organic tomatoes. Flavonoids such as these are known antioxidants and have been linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular disease, some forms of cancer and dementia, says Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist who led the research at the University of California, Davis.

I coulda told them that for free....

Organic no longer means organic, Toto

Thanks to the Compassionator and his concerned cabal of conservatives. We are now eating what the Wicked Witch of the West cooks up.

Kirk James Murphy, M.D. of Firedoglake:

Last week the USDA unveiled their new “standards” for 39 food materials. Amazingly enough, all 39 proposed “standards” simply declare chemicals or chemically grown foodsstuffs can now be hidden in foods labelled “organic”. The comment period ended Tuesday, May 22.

Big Industrial Food (and their colleagues temporarily on detail as Bushie political appointees at USDA) have been chewing this over for years. The Bushies at USDA generously gave the public seven days of comment (instead of the usual 30 or 45) on the latest loopholes Big Ag and Big Bug Spray found for our tables.

Big Ag and Big Bug Spray have entered their “Harry Potter” phase. They want the USDA to magically declare:

• Chemically grown rice magically produces organic rice starch
• Chemically grown hops magically make organic beer.
• Chemical cheese from chemically raised milk magically contains organic whey protein
• Chemical fish raised in pens and fed nothing but artificial food pellets and antibiotics will – when passed through industrial grinders – magically produce organic fish oil.

Big Ag and Big Bug Spray believe in magic. Who knew?

When someone refuses to tell you what is in the food you are eating

Would you eat it? Especially if it's a corporation that is relying on your money for its existence?

Besides, cloned meat is good for you! Because we said so! So why do you need to read about what is in your meat?

Steve Bates at The Yellow Doggerel Democrat:

For those nut-cases among us (and yes, I am one such) who think there is no way the industry can make that statement of equivalence with any confidence of its truth over the long run, shouldn't we be allowed to avoid eating cloned products? After all, we're allowed to drink fat-free milk (thanks to a label), eat produce grown without chemical pesticides (thanks to a label), and eat 100% whole-grain breads (thanks to a label). We are allowed to do so, or not, at our own discretion, for no better reason than that we think those characteristics confer some advantage to us as consumers... no scientific proof is required of their superiority, only consumers' desire to control their own intake. The meaning of all those labels is under federal regulatory control. Why should cloned foods not be similarly labeled? There is no rationale for making such an exception; there is only political pressure applied through money, money and more money.

We are already eating genetically altered vegetables, Monsanto has unleashed the Terminator Gene which sterilizes plants, super rats are becoming immune to poisons.... so what's a cloned burger or two?

Moo?



Update: Spocko discusses the contaminates in the pet food and how the FDA is not telling us the truth:

Did you know that ConAgra cut a deal with the USDA so that they didn't have to notify the public about the locations of where tainted beef was shipped? Yep, and during our first mad cow scare that meant that a Vietnamese restaurant in Truckee, CA served people mad cow steak. Why? Because the information about where the food was shipped was dubbed proprietary in the "rules" negotiated with the USDA and big Ag. Is something similar going on now?

And these are the people who insist that cloning is safe. Maybe it is, but I do not trust the present FDA and the Bush administration. Give us all the information and let us decide. We are utimately responsible for our own lives, let us make the choices. I do not wish to be Enroned and Katrina'd to death, thanks.

Is the meat from cloned animals going to be identified?

For some organic food producers, it should be. Others say no. Remember the difference between cloning and genetic modification.

For organic, some question whether clones or their offspring really go against the rules.

The Agriculture Department was asked to address cloning when the organic standards were written, a process that drew comments from more than 300,000 people and organizations. The standards, which took effect in 2002, do not mention clones or their offspring; instead, they say genetic engineering is not allowed.

That is a source of disagreement between the department and the cloning industry.

Department officials say cloning is forbidden in organic animals. The process is incompatible with the standards, says Lloyd Day, head of the Agricultural Marketing Service, which governs the organic industry. The department still must decide whether the offspring of cloned animals are allowed, Day said.

Cloning companies disagree. They note the FDA says cloning is not genetic engineering. The idea of genetic engineering is to take away or add genes, while cloning leaves the gene sequence intact.

"Our interpretation is that cloning is not excluded at this time," Glenn said.

Rather, FDA says cloning is a technology that help animals reproduce, similar to in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. And in vitro fertilization is allowed under organic production rules.

The government has asked producers to voluntarily keep clones away from the food supply until final approval is granted.