Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE


OCCUPY WELLNESS

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Sunday, April 28, 2013

6 ways Big Pharma manipulates consumers


SALON




6 ways Big Pharma manipulates consumers

While many top-market pills have gone off patent, the pharmaceutical industry still knows how to turn a profit



6 ways Big Pharma manipulates consumers
 
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.


The blockbuster pill profit party is over for Big Pharma. Bestselling pills like Lipitor, Seroquel, Zyprexa, Singular and Concerta have gone off patent and sites which their ads sustained are withering on the vine. WebMD, for example, the voice of Pharma on the Web, with a former Pfizer exec serving as CEO, announced it would cut 250 positions in December.

But don’t worry, Wall Street. Pharma isn’t going to deliver disappointing earnings just because it has little or no new drugs coming online and has failed at the very reason for its existence. Here are six new Pharma marketing initiatives that are guaranteed to keep investor expectations high along with our insurance premiums. The secret? Recycling old and discredited drugs and marketing diseases to sell the few new ones.

1) Repurposing Ritalin

Now that Pharma’s succeeded in getting five million children and four to eight million adults diagnosed with ADHD, it’s looking for new markets for the drugs. One new use for Ritalin (methylphenidate), the grandfather of ADHD drugs, could be for eating disorders.Researchers say a woman who suffered from bulimia nervosa, bipolar I disorder, cocaine and alcohol dependence, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and panic disorder “achieved a sustained (>1 year) remission” when methylphenidate was added to her other drugs.

Then there’s pregnant women. A new paper suggests that taking away a women’s methylphenidate during pregnancy may “may present a significant risk” and that, “In all cases, children developed normally and no adverse effects were reported,” though they were exposed in utero. Yes, kids can be given ADHD meds at even younger ages–as fetuses.

Pharma is also looking at the elderly as a new market for ADHD drugs. Methylphenidate may “improve gait function in older adults,” researchers wrote recently. And a major clinical trial sponsored by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is underway to see if methylphenidate can reduce apathy in Alzheimer patients. Of course many Alzheimer patients don’t have apathy but agitation and aggression; they will be excluded.

2) Male Hormone Replacement

Women over 40 might feel a rush of medical justice over the big push to treat men’s “Low T,” a recent “disease” now aggressively marketed, with replacement testosterone. For over 50 years, medical journals were relentless in telling women they were “outliving their ovaries” (a real ad) and the only hope to keep their looks, their husbands and their sanity was hormone replacement. Now men are hearing that their decreased sex drive and energy, reduced muscle and growing fat put them in the same position. Missing in both marketing campaigns is the fact that people don’t get old because they lose hormones; they lose hormones because they get old.

Many testosterone replacement products have been approved by the FDA from pills, injections and patches to gels and solutions that are applied topically. In November, the first underarm testosterone replacement product was approved which is applied like deodorant.

The male HRT products are not without their risks. They can worsen benign prostate problems, heart failure, sleep apnea, cause liver toxicity and possibly stimulate prostate cancer though it remains a theoretical risk. Injected testosterone has been associated with embolisms and extreme allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) both of which can be fatal. Men who take Propecia for hair loss can especially have low testosterone, which may not be reversible, because it reduces an enzyme involved in testosterone synthesis.

3) Calling Alcoholics and Addicts Mentally Ill and In Need of Vaccines

One of the few good things about alcoholism and drug addiction is they can be treated for free. Twelve-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous use peer support instead of drugs, trained personnel or insurance — and they work. It’s no surprise that the millions of people recovering without Pharma’s help are its latest target as it tries to shore up revenues. Pharma is increasingly pressuring rehab facilities and doctors to add a mental illness diagnoses to recovering patients to sell expensive pills. Ka-ching!

Worse, Nora Volkow, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, is conducting cruel experiments on primates to develop a vaccine for alcoholic or addicts. Is there an alcoholic or addict in the world who would take such a vaccine? Doesn’t she know that drinking and drugging are fun (until they aren’t) and that no one wants to quit before the party’s over? Doesn’t she know that when drinking and drugging cease to be fun, a thing called denial kicks in and alcoholics and addict still won’t take her vaccine?

These alcoholic/addict vaccines will be marketed for people “at risk” of addiction on the basis of their family histories and brain scans which sounds a little, well, non-voluntary. Marketing early aggressive treatment for diseases people don’t even have yet (“pre-osteoporosis,” “pre-diabetes,” “pre-asthma” and “pre” mental illness) is a foolproof business model for Pharma because people will never know if they even needed the drugs–or need them now.

4) Pathologizing Insomnia

Insomnia has been a goldmine to Big Pharma. To goose the insomnia market, Pharma has created subcategories of insomnia — chronic, acute, transient, initial, delayed-onset and middle-of-the-night as well as early-morning wakening non-restful sleep. Your insomnia is as unique as you are! It is also no coincidence that “wakefulness” medications cause insomnia and insomnia drugs, because of their hangover, create a market for wakefulness drugs.
Now Pharma is announcing that insomnia is actually a “risk” 
factor for depression and “that treating insomnia can help treat depression.” The American Psychiatric Association’s new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) due in May also newly pathologizes sleep. Considered the Bible of psychiatric drug treatments that end up being funded by insurers, the latest DSM has revised the way insomnia is diagnosed and classified. “If sleep disturbance is persistent and impairs daytime functioning, then it should be recognized and treated,” write authors in a paper in the December issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

5) ”Selling” Chronic Immune Disorders

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and plaque psoriasis are rare disorders, but you wouldn’t know it from Pharma’s latest marketing efforts. The autoimmune conditions are increasingly treated with genetically engineered, injected drugs like Humira, Remicide, Enbrel and Cimzia which can make Pharma $20,000 per year per patient. No wonder a recent ad campaign tries to convince people with back pain “that doesn’t go away” that they really have ankylosing spondylitis. No wonder “RA” (rheumatoid arthritis) ads are everywhere and ads for plaque psoriasis drugs promise “clearer skin” like beauty creams. In Chicago, ads for the expensive, injected drugs have appeared in college newspapers, as if they are for the general population instead of people with uncommon diseases.

Because such drugs, called TNF blockers, suppress the immune system, they invite super bacterial and fungal infections, herpes and rare cancers, the latter especially in children. They are linked to increasing hospitalizations, extreme allergic reactions and cardiovascular events, all of which Pharma tries to downplay. TNF blockers are also marketed for thinning bones and asthma, conditions that would rarely warrant their risks. Xolair, marketed for asthma despite its FDA warnings. has recently gotten buzz as a great treatment for chronic itch.

6) Recycling Neurontin

The seizure drug Neurontin (gabapentin) has not been Pharma’s finest hour. A division of Pfizer Inc., pleaded guilty in 2008 to illegally promoting it for bipolar disorder, pain, migraine headaches, and drug and alcohol withdrawal when it was only approved for postherpetic neuralgia, pain after shingles and epilepsy, paying $430 million. Oops. Pfizer actually promoted the illegal uses while under probation for illegal activities related to Lipitor and later promoted illegal uses for a similar drug, Lyrica, while under the Neurontin agreement! See: incorrigible.

To sell Neurontin, Pfizer’s Parke-Davis launched an elaborate “publication plan” to get marketing papers disguised as science in medical journals. In just three years, Parke-Davis planted 13 ghostwritten articles in medical journals promoting off-label uses for Neurontin including a supplement to the prestigious Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine that Parke-Davis made into 43,000 reprints for its reps to disseminate. See Doc, it says right here….

And there was more duplicity. In 2011, three years after its $430 million settlement, Pfizer’s STEPS trial (“Study of Neurontin: Titrate to Effect, Profile of Safety”) was reported to also be a con and not a scientific study; it was a sales tool created to inspire the 772 investigators participating in the trail to personally prescribe Neurontin. Recently, the new uses of Neurontin for chronic cough, menopause and insomnia are appearing in scientific literature. Why does no one seem to believe them?
Martha Rosenberg frequently writes about the impact of the pharmaceutical, food and gun industries on public health. Her work has appeared in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and other outlets

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Biotech's Latest Creation: Franken-Apples Coming to a Store Near You




Food  

We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a possibly risky manipulation of RNA, doesn’t deserve a place on our grocery shelves.

 
 
Photo Credit: Kary1974/ Shutterstock.com

 
 
This article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org.

Thanks to the biotech industry’s relentless quest to control our food, McDonald’s, Burger King and even school cafeterias will soon be able to serve up apples that won’t turn brown when they’re sliced or bitten into. A new, almost entirely untested genetic modification technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), is responsible for this new food miracle. Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. The biotech industry claims otherwise.

Of course, like any non-organic apple, the new GMO Arctic® Apple will be drenched in toxic pesticide residues, untested by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA) and likely unlabeled. And of course these shiny new high-tech apples will be cheap, priced considerably lower than a pesticide-free, nutrient-dense, old-fashioned organic apple that turns a little brown after you slice it up.

When the Biotech Industry Organization gathers next week in Chicago for the 2013 BIO International Convention, BIOTECanada will present its “Gold Leaf Award for Early Stage Agriculture” to Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (OSF), purveyor of the Arctic® Apple, slated for approval in the U.S. this year. We hate to upset the biotech apple cart, but a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a risky manipulation of RNA, doesn’t deserve a place on our grocery shelves, much less in the agriculture hall of fame.

That said, the Arctic “Frankenapple” is expected to be approved this year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. It does not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed.

Just one more bad apple

Apples, that is, apples that haven’t been certified organic, already are on the list of Should-Be-Forbidden fruits. They reliably top the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list, for both the volume and the stunning array of pesticides consistently found on them. According to the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 pesticides, including organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. Both are endocrine disruptors, both have suspected neurological effects, and both are considered especially toxic for children. (Organophosphates are the basis for nerve gases used in chemical warfare, and have been linked to the development of ADHD in kids.)

Given the grim report card of non-organic apples, some might say it really doesn’t make any difference if we start tinkering with the apple’s genetic RNA. After all, unlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists aren’t injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apple’s case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically “silences” the apple’s ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when it’s exposed to oxygen.

Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky. Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food.
The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists says otherwise. They point to evidence that the manipulated RNA finds its way into our digestive systems and bloodstreams, potentially damaging or silencing vital human genes.

There are indirect health consequences, too. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple’s ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts, of possibly even more toxic pesticides, on a crop already saturated with at least 42 types of pesticides. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.

Testing? What testing?

So what’s the trade-off? Non-organic apple growers will prosper as more moms buy more apples for more kids who will, the industry alleges, be the healthier for it.  It makes for a good public relations story, but no matter how you wrap it up or slice it, taking apples that are already saturated in pesticides, and genetically engineering them for purely cosmetic purposes, does not a healthy snack make.

The pro- and anti-GMO movements will debate whether or not the GMO apple is safe for human consumption. The fact is, we’ll never know until they are properly labeled and safety-tested. As with every other GMO food ingredient or product sold in the U.S., the Arctic Apple will undergo no independent safety testing by the FDA or the USDA. Instead, the USDA will rely on OSF’s word that the apple is safe for human consumption. And without any state or federal mandatory GMO labeling laws in place, OSF will not be required to label its Frankenapple, meaning that consumers or children harmed by the dsRNA modified apple will have great difficulty identifying the mutant RNA that harmed them.

The controversy and debate surrounding dsRNA and the Arctic Apple has just begun. But there is no longer any debate about the dangers that pesticides and pesticide residues on non-organic apples pose to humans, whether we directly ingest these toxic residues by eating an apple, or whether we’re exposed to them through contaminated air and groundwater as a result of acres of orchards being sprayed to control increasingly resistant insects and diseases.

What about the argument that a kid eating a few slices of apples can’t consume enough of any one of these pesticides to cause any real risk to their health? Debunked. Recent studies reveal that during apple season, kids exhibit spikes in the level of pesticides found in their urine, spikes that exceed the U.S.
government’s “safe levels.” Kids who live in apple-growing regions show even higher spikes. And those 42 varieties of pesticides? The government establishes “safe levels” for each one – but it doesn’t test for the potential effect of ingesting 42 different pesticides, all chemically interacting with each other, and ingested all at once.

From biodiversity to monoculture

How did we get to the point where it takes 42 pesticides to keep an apple crop healthy? Michael Pollan best explains it in his book Botany of Desire. Turns out that apples have an extreme tendency toward something called heterozygosity, which means genetic variability. This trait accounts for how, left to its own devices, the apple can “make itself at home in places as different from one another as New England and New Zealand, Kazakhstan and California.” Pollan writes: “Wherever the apple tree goes, its offspring propose so many different variations on what it means to be an apple – at least five per apple, several thousand per tree – that a couple of these novelties are almost bound to have whatever qualities it takes to prosper in the tree’s adopted home.”

Today, you’d have to visit the apple orchard museum in Geneva, New York, to find all the varieties of apples that used to thrive in the wild. Over time, in our quest to control the taste, texture and appearance of apples, we’ve eliminated all but a relative few varieties. We’ve gone too far, says Pollan. By relying on too few genes for too long, the apple has lost its ability to get along on its own, outdoors.

Enter the agro-chemical companies. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Agricultural Chemical Use Program, apple growers in states surveyed in 2011 applied carbaryl to 46 percent of their acreage, at an average rate  of 1.566 pounds per acre for the crop year; chlorantraniliprole to 45 percent;  and chlorpyrifos to 44 percent. Apple growers applied glyphosate isopropylamine salt to 25 percent of acres at an average of 1.604 pounds per acre for the crop year. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The Arctic Apple has been in development for over a decade, the company says. OSF submitted a petition for deregulation to the USDA in May 2010. The USDA, which must hold two public comment periods, concluded the first on Sept. 11, 2011. It’s expected to open the second public comment period this spring or summer, and OSF hopes the GMO apple will be approved for growing and selling in the U.S. this year.

The Organic Consumers Association will hold a press conference and set up a picket line at the Biotechnology Industry Organization Convention in Chicago, at noon on April 23, to protest OSF’s GMO apple.

Katherine Paul is director of development and communications at the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Majority of chemicals in household products have never been independently tested


SALON





Majority of chemicals in household products have never been independently tested

 

Common household products like detergent may contain untested and potentially dangerous chemicals, a report finds





 
Majority of chemicals in household products have never been independently tested (Credit: Shutterstock)
Current law regulating industrial chemicals commonly used in household products rarely requires companies to provide the federal government with adequate information about their safety, a new report finds.

“Regulators, doctors, environmentalists and the chemical industry agree that the country’s main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, needs fixing,” Ian Urbina wrote in The New York Times on Sunday.
According to the report in the Times:
Currently this burden rests almost entirely on the federal government. Companies have to alert the Environmental Protection Agency before manufacturing or importing new chemicals. But then it is the E.P.A.’s job to review academic or industry data, or use computer modeling, to determine whether a new chemical poses risks. Companies are not required to provide any safety data when they notify the agency about a new chemical, and they rarely do it voluntarily, although the E.P.A. can later request data if it can show there is a potential risk. If the E.P.A. does not take steps to block the new chemical within 90 days or suspend review until a company provides any requested data, the chemical is by default given a green light.

The law puts federal authorities in a bind. “It’s the worst kind of Catch-22,” said Dr. Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Under this law, the E.P.A. can’t even require testing to determine whether a risk exists without first showing a risk is likely.”

As a result, the overwhelming majority of chemicals in use today have never been independently tested for safety.
The “safe until proven dangerous” system of vetting chemicals used in household products is a departure from how pharmaceutical and pesticide companies are mandated to safety-test their products. And critics of current lax regulations see both industry standards as a model for chemical reform:
Pharmaceutical companies used to be able to sell drugs with minimal prior testing, but that changed after a drug called Thalidomide, given in the 1950s to pregnant women for morning sickness, was found to cause severe birth defects the public outcry helped push the medical field to take a precautionary approach to introducing new drugs.
Federal reform of the toxic substances act may be coming. Last week, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York,  introduced a bill called the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013, which would require the chemical industry to demonstrate that a chemical is safe in order for it to be sold. The bill, which has more than 25 Democratic co-sponsors, would put limits on trade secret practices and requires industry to reduce use of the chemicals designated by the E.P.A. as being of “greatest concern” because they are most toxic.
But a competing bill being introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) may siphon support for the Safe Chemicals Act, potentially derailing the process altogether.
While many states currently have their own standards regulating chemical safety, but, as Urbina notes, in the absence of federal standards “For now, consumers and companies looking for safer products are largely on their own.”
Katie McDonough is an assistant editor for Salon, focusing on lifestyle. Follow her on Twitter @kmcdonovgh or email her at kmcdonough@salon.com.

Friday, April 12, 2013

National Organic Standards Board Decision a Victory for Organics, Preservation of Antibiotics

Food & Water Watch



April 11th, 2013

National Organic Standards Board Decision a Victory for Organics, Preservation of Antibiotics

 

 
 

A joint statement of Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch and The Center for Food Safety

Portland, Ore.—Today the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) rejected a petition to extend the expiration date for the use of oxytetracycline to treat fire blight in apple and pear production beyond October 21, 2014. The decision is a victory for the organic standard and advances efforts to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics.

The vote came after a long and controversial debate because some apple and pear growers do not believe they have adequate alternatives to antibiotics. Consumer and environmental advocates urged them to end the use of tetracycline as soon as possible in order to meet consumer expectations and to respond to mounting evidence that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a serious threat to public health. Antibiotics are not allowed in any other types of organic food, including production of organic livestock.

We applaud the Board for making the right decision to end the use of this antibiotic as soon as possible and we believe this timeline for ending the use of tetracycline is consistent with consumer expectations. This decision will drive the organic apple and pear market to a higher standard.

We urge the USDA to help growers continue to find workable alternative treatments for fire blight that are compatible with organic production. The Board passed a resolution to encourage the USDA to investigate a transitional option for the emergency use of tetracycline until 2017. The agency must guarantee that any emergency use is extremely limited, ends as soon as possible and, most importantly, apples and pears from treated trees can not be sold as organic.

More background on this issue, including consumer poll results can be found here: http://fwwat.ch/NOSBabxVOTE

Contacts:
Naomi Starkman, nstarkman@gmail.com, 917.539.3924
Anna Ghosh, aghosh@fwwatch.org, 415.293.9905
Abigail Seiler, CFS, abigail@centerforfoodsafety.org, 202.679.3370

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
###

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Organic Eden Foods’ Secretive Right-Wing Agenda






Personal Health  


A crunchy, natural food company marketed to liberals discreetly sues to stop covering employees' contraception.

 
 
 
 
 

The slogan for Eden Foods, which describes itself as the “oldest natural and organic food company in North America,” is “creation and maintenance of purity in food.” Its CEO and founder, Michael Potter, has been prominent in debates over labeling of organic food and GMOs. But the company has been quietly seeking in court another form of purity — to Catholic doctrine about sex being solely for procreation. That goes not just for Potter, but for all 128 of his employees.

That is, Eden Foods — an organic food company with no shortage of liberal customers — has quietly pursued a decidedly right-wing agenda, suing the Obama administration for exemption from the mandate to cover contraception for its employees under the Affordable Care Act. In court filings, Eden Foods, represented by the conservative Thomas More Law Center, alleges that its rights have been violated under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Eden Foods, which did not respond to a request for comment, says in its filing that the company believes of birth control that “these procedures almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices.” The complaint also says that “Plaintiffs believe that Plan B and ‘ella’ can cause the death of the embryo, which is a person.” (Studies show that neither Plan B nor Ella interfere with fertilization, which is the Catholic definition of the beginning of life, if not the medical one. In other words, not the death of an embryo. Also, at that stage, it’s a zygote, not an embryo — let alone a “person.”) The filing also said that “Plaintiff Eden Foods’ products, methods, and accomplishments are described by critics as: tasteful, nutritious, wholesome, principled, unrivaled, nurturing, pure.”

Until now, Eden Foods’ conservative advocacy litigation has remained mostly under the radar, even as their marketing seems designed to appeal to liberals, from the slogan ”Organic agriculture is society’s brightest hope for positive change” to the sixties imagery and the use of the word “revolution” in some of its print marketing. The company’s mission statement includes its goal to “contribute to peaceful evolution on earth,” “to maintain a healthy, respectful, challenging, and rewarding environment for employees,” and to “cultivate sound relationships with other organizations and individuals who are like minded and involved in like pursuits.”

It’s not the first time a company with a nebulously progressive image has actually been led by someone whose politics would horrify many of its customers. John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, has publicly campaigned against the Affordable Care Act, including recentlyreferring to it as “fascism.” And  Lululemon’s executive adulation for Ayn Rand became famous when the yoga products company printed bags asking, “Who is John Galt?” But while those companies have been raked over the coals, Eden Foods’ efforts have largely gone unnoticed.

Eden Foods’ employees are covered under Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, but until recently, Potter was able to exclude what the insurance company deemed (hilariously) “Lifestyle Drugs.” (Some rare consistency: The exclusion also included Viagra.) But once Potter became aware that the company’s plan had begun to cover contraception in accordance with the Obamacare regulations, he teamed up with Thomas More Law Center to sue. The Center focuses on violations of “religious freedom,” including in connection with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. They also represented Pastor Terry Jones, who became famous for his plan to burn Korans on the anniversary of 9/11.

They filed suit on March 20, 2013, against Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and other government parties, demanding an exemption, despite the fact that Eden Foods is a for-profit company. Two days later, District Court Judge Denise Page Hood denied an emergency motion to be exempted, writing, “Courts have held that the Mandate in question applies only to the corporate entity, not to its officers or owners, and that as to the individual owners, any burden imposed on them individually by the contraception mandate is remote[.]” She added, “The purpose of the Women’s Preventive Healthcare Regulations is not to target religion, but instead to promote public health and gender equality.” A hearing has been set for May 10.

According to a scorecard compiled by the Becket Fund, another conservative legal outfit that has represented plaintiffs against the HHS mandate, there are 25 for-profit companies that have filed suit over the requirement to cover contraception in employee health plans. Seventeen of those have so far been granted temporary injunctions exempting them from the regulation. Separately, 30 non-profit organizations, including universities with religious affiliations, have been filed, but many are in limbo as the administration clarifies who will be exempt. This week, the public comment period on revising the regulations ended, and Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards said in a statement on the policy, “The idea that your employer could refuse to cover a prescription medication because they disagree with one of its uses—that’s unacceptable.”

Many customers of Eden Foods may feel the same way about a company marketing itself to a liberal clientele and then quietly harboring a right-wing, ideological agenda.

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

'Monsanto Protection Act' Sows Seeds of GMO Anger


Fallout from Obama's signature on biotech rider continues

 

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer 
 
Twitpic: 



Occupy MonsantoA little-noticed rider in legislation, dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act by critics, signed into law by President Obama last Tuesday is sparking outrage as it begins to gather wider media attention and scrutiny.

Patty Lovera of the food safety advocacy organization Food and Water Watch writes that the rider
is a giveaway to genetically engineered seed companies that would allow the continued planting of genetically engineered crops even when a court finds they were approved illegally. This provision unnecessarily interferes with the judicial review process and picked up the well-deserved nickname of the “Monsanto Protection Act” because it weakens the already inadequate review process for GE crops. And it isn’t a new idea – you may remember attempts last year to include this measure and two more that would have essentially created a fast track approval process for GE crops in the Farm Bill and in USDA’s budget.
Thankfully, the rider in the continuing resolution doesn’t include the other two provisions that create the fast track approval process. But it’s still terrible news that the biotech industry can convince members of Congress who should know better, like Senator Mikulski (D-MD) who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, to include any bad language like this in a must pass bill.
Speaking on Al Jazeera's Inside Story Americas, Tom Philpott, food and agriculture writer at Mother Jones and co-founder of Maverick Farms, said, "What this is really about is ... ensuring that the USDA doesn't do rigorous environmental studies, impact studies of novel GMO crops. . . .  Even if a judge rules that the USDA has improperly approved these crops, what this provision states is that the USDA has to permit their planting anyway."

"I think it's a pretty clear case of checks and balances of government being overturned," he said.

Speaking on the Senate floor, organic farmer and Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) argued against the rider, saying:
The United States Congress is telling the Agricultural Department that even if a court tells you that you’ve failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you must disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway. Not only does this ignore the constitutional idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified crops take hold across this country, even when a judge finds it violates the law—once again, agribusiness multinational corporations putting farmers as serfs. It’s a dangerous precedent. Mr. President, it will paralyze the USDA, putting the department in the middle of a battle between Congress and the courts.
The rider is "a clear violation of the separation of powers between three equal branches of government,” stated Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of the grassroots group Food Democracy Now!, which gathered over 250,000 signatures to tell Obama to veto the "Monsanto Protection Act."

“Not only does the Monsanto Protection Act undermine the sovereignty of U.S. courts," Murphy said in a statement, "but it also makes it impossible for government officials to faithfully protect the American public from potential human health and environmental harms of untested genetically engineered crops.”

The rider has even roused the ire of the Tea Party Patriots.
So how did it get into the spending bill?

Foodopoly author and Food and Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter says just follow the money.

Speaking on Democracy Now! Tuesday, Hauter said:
I think we have to look at how much money that the biotech industry has spent on lobbying. I mean, over the last 10 years, the biotech industry has spent $272 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. They have a hundred lobby shops in Washington.
They’ve hired 13 former members of Congress. They’ve hired 300 former staffers for the White House and for Congress. And Monsanto alone has spent $63 million over the last 12 years on lobbying and campaign contributions. This is about political muscle and forcing their will on the American people. And if we don’t put a stop to it here, we’re going to see many, many more serious violations.
Eric Darier, a senior campaigner on sustainable agriculture at Greenpeace International, adds:
This should also be a reminder to all of us across the world of the ability of some corporations like Monsanto to influence policymakers to adopt measures that are against sustainable agriculture, farmers, consumers and the environment. And let’s now add to this list: independent judicial review! A very sad day for democracy and the future of our food.
The legislation may already have Obama's signature, but Food Democracy Now! is continuing its fight against the effects of the "Monsanto Protection Act."

The group is now calling on Obama to issue an executive order to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.


* * *

  1. Even the Tea Party is pissed about the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ http://bit.ly/YRfXsk 
  2. The Monsanto Protection Act: Why Has Obama Given Immunity to the Production and Sale of GMOs? | Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/video/2013/04/02-0#.UVt0YU1lId0.twitter 
  3. Did you catch our 30-minute discussion on the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" today? Watch it here: http://owl.li/jGrzw 
  4. Full Text of the just-passed Monsanto Protection Act - http://bit.ly/10vKtXa  pic.twitter.com/mTYd9tsOOG
  5. The Real Story Behind the So-Called Monsanto Protection | by @JonEntine http://onforb.es/XWju5w 
  6. 'Monsanto Protection Act' Sows Seeds of GMO Anger http://ow.ly/jGnyV 
  7. Tea Party joins opposition to "Monsanto Protection Act" http://huff.to/14CxWGE 
  8. Tea Party Patriots Criticize 'Monsanto Protection Act' http://huff.to/11j1TIV  on @HuffPostPol take action! http://bit.ly/12dS9i9 
  9. The howling over the so-called Monsanto provision in the agriculture spending bill is all show & little substance http://ow.ly/jFUgh 
  10. Top Senator, Barbara Mikulski, Apologizes For Monsanto Protection Act http://bit.ly/Z5hRIP 
  11. Did you know some members of Congress did not know they were signing the Monsanto Protection Act? @KCETFood has more: http://bit.ly/10tzZaM 
  12. Monsanto Protection Act Signed By Obama http://planetsave.com/2013/03/30/monsanto-protection-act-signed-by-obama-gmo-bill-written-by-monsanto-itself-signed-into-law/#gsc.tab=0 
  13. Exposing the Anti-GMO Legal Machine: The Real Story Behind the So-Called Monsanto Protection Act http://onforb.es/XI6AMx 
  14. RETWEET: @SenatorBarb Mikulski don't just apologize; RESIND the Monsanto Protection Act. http://ow.ly/jGkT5  @SenateDems @Senate_GOPs too
  15. New on our blog, "Pro-GE Cat’s Outta the Bag: 'Monsanto Protection Act' Culprit is Revealed" http://j.mp/XI55y2 
  16. "Monsanto Protection Act", NDAA, do you STILL think the sitting president & the "professional politicians" have your best interests in mind?


    Martina Navratilova         @Martina
    Odd 'Monsanto Protection Act' Foe- Monsanto has absolutely no shame. Did the president know? http://huff.to/13PifNq 





    _________________________