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

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Ben & Jerry's is removing a controversial ingredient from its ice cream: Genetically-modified organisms.



 
As the campaign to label food products made with GMO ingredients moves across the states, including Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s is proud to stand with the growing consumer movement for transparency and the right to know what’s in our food supply by supporting mandatory GMO labeling legislation.

Here’s our status: currently, in the United States and Canada, 80% of Ben & Jerry’s ingredients by volume are sourced non-GMO.  We commit to sourcing non-GMO ingredients for all our products everywhere by year-end 2013. In fact all our products made in Europe are already non-GMO.

We will track our progress as we complete this conversion, with public updates on this site. Beginning now, and throughout 2013, we will transition packaging so that all Ben & Jerry’s products will be labeled with respect to GMO by the end of 2014.

Just Label It! logoWe have a long history of siding with consumers and their right to know what’s in their food. We fought long and hard for labeling of rBGH, which was the first genetically engineered technology used in the US food system. We thank and encourage all those who are continuing this fight in support of transparency and the consumer’s right to know.
You can take action now at Just Label It!

 



Monday, June 3, 2013

3 Staple Foods that Big Ag Has Stripped of All Nutrients

Food  


We need to reclaim our fruits and vegetables for the sake of our health.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/AXL
Thanks to the “super food” debate that has raged over the past several years, we’ve been led to believe that these and other types of grains, fruits, and veggies are the key to living a long and healthy life.

From classrooms to media campaigns, we’ve been told that if we eat the proper portions of fruits, grains, and veggies each and every day, we’ll be on the road to a life of optimum health.

But, since the dawn of the agricultural revolution, and particularly over the last 100 years, we’ve been changing the nature of the food that we produce and consume, and as result, removing the vital nutrients from our diets that were once staples of our ancestor’s diets.

Studies published over the last several years show that our current selection of produce is remarkably low in phytonutrients, the compounds that reduce the risk of health ailments like cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

We've been systematically stripping phytonutrients from our diet ever since we stopped hunting and gathering wild plants thousands of years ago and started farming our food.

For instance, since our ancestors first began to farm, bitter plants have typically been avoided, because they don't taste as good as starchy, sugary plants.


But, research has shown that some of the most beneficial phytonutrients are in plants, vegetables and fruits that have bitter tastes.

As one example, take a look at corn.


Today, we typically only eat the white and yellow varieties of corn. These types of corn have 1.54 and 70.2 milligrams respectively of anthocyanins, a type of phytonutrient, per 100 grams of dried corn.

But, blue corn, which is nearly impossible to find in any produce section today, has a whopping 99.5 milligrams of anthocyanins per 100 grams of dried corn.

Next, check out greens.


Today, we think that spinach is the healthiest green around.

But there are only .89 milligrams of antioxidants per 100 grams of fresh spinach. That's less than one!

In comparison, wild dandelion greens, which were once staples of Native American diets and which today are considered common weeds, contain a staggering 6.89 antioxidants per 100 grams. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to find wild dandelions at your local grocery store.

Finally, look at apples.


Everyone loves a good Granny Smith or Red Delicious apple, but these varieties of apples only contain 205 and 108 milligrams of phytonutrients per liter of juice.

On the other hand, a Siberian crabapple has 4,606 milligrams of phytonutrients per liter of juice. And, Sikkim crabapples come in even higher than that, at 7,181 milligrams of phytonutrients.

But once again, good luck finding those in the store. They're not as sweet, so nobody wants to buy or eat them.

Prior to the agricultural revolution, indigenous hunting-gathering people lived daily in the hands of Mother Nature. If they didn't understand how she worked, how to sustainably hunt and gather, they wouldn’t survive.

Over millennia, they learned which plants and grains, fruit and veggies would provide the nutrition that they needed. They lived off the Earth, and with the Earth.

But then we began intensive agriculture about 7000 years ago, and everything changed.

Instead of everybody being involved in hunting and gathering food, now only a small number of people managed our food production and remained connected to nature. The rest of us disconnected ourselves from nature, and even began to see nature as our enemy rather than that which gives us life and sustains our lives.

Today, that disconnection has gone on steroids. Food production is controlled by giant transnational corporations like Monsanto, that care more about making a profit than providing nutritious foods to the you and me.

Their goal isn’t to produce foods that contain the most phytonutrients; it’s to produce foods that will help create the largest profits.

And it's making us sick – and making our planet sick – which is why it needs to change.

During World War II, we had “Victory Gardens” where people all across the nation were encouraged to grown much of their own food in their yards. Today, we instead use more water on our grass than we do on our crops.

We need to reclaim our plant heritage, take back our heirloom seeds for all of humanity, and start planting gardens in our green spaces. We need to reconnect with Mother Earth. And we need to use out government to break up the big food monopolies that threaten not just our small farmers and our health, but threaten our entire planet as their genetically modified genes escape into the wild.

Let's wake up and take back control of our food supply!

Thom Hartmann is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is The Thom Hartmann Reader.

Boycott the Brands that Blocked Your Right to Know!

Organic Consumers Association

Boycott the Brands that Blocked Your Right to Know!

$45 Million in Lies and Dirty Tricks Killed Prop 37 - It's Payback Time!

Please sign the pledge below to let the following companies know you're joining the boycott. These companies make billions of dollars selling organic and "natural" brands, yet they spent millions to defeat Prop 37, CA Right to Know's ballot initiative to label genetically modified food. Click the hyperlinks to contact specific brands.

• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s, Tropicana, Loóza, Izze, Sabra, Smartfood, Stacy's, Mother's and Near East
• Kraft, recently became Mondelez (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


Download your wallet-sized boycott guide.
Download a poster-sized boycott guide
.
Learn more about the boycott

Request free, printed copies of the boycott guide

Click here for a comprehensive list of all the brands owned by corporations that donated to the No on 37 campaign.



LINK TO SOURCE AND PLEDGE 

 04/25/13 - Boycott the Brands that Blocked Your Right to Know!

Take Action Today

Sunday, June 2, 2013

How to Decode Egg Cartons



How to Decode Egg Cartons

Not all eggs are created equal, so it’s important to know what different labels really mean. 




By Laura Sayre

April/May 2007



EggCartons.jpg
"Not all eggs are created equal, so it’s important to know what different labels really mean."

MATTHEW T. STALLBAUMER




On a recent Saturday afternoon I bought three dozen eggs from my local Wild Oats supermarket. All were large, brown, cage-free, certified organic eggs. The least expensive, at $3.19, advertised “225 mg of Omega-3 per egg.” The most expensive cost $4.29 and said “Two eggs contain 400 mg of Omega-3.” These were Grade AA, the highest level in the USDA’s voluntary cosmetic grading system for eggs (all the others were Grade A), and were positioned behind a little shelf tag encouraging me to “Buy Local” (although they didn’t appear to be local). The third dozen cost $3.49 and said nothing about omega-3 levels.

My observations on cracking open some samples? The priciest eggs had the lowest apparent quality, i.e. pale, flat yolks and loose whites. The best-looking were the $3.49 eggs, with unknown omega-3 levels. But none looked anywhere near as good as a sample bought directly from a farmer who raises pastured poultry about five miles from where I live and sells eggs for $3 a dozen.

Conventional egg production — that is to say, the vast majority of egg production in the United States — is not a pretty business. Laying hens are crammed five or six to a cage in stacked rows of cages designed for automated feeding, watering and egg-collecting. As many as 100,000 birds can be confined in a single warehouse, each bird with less than 67 square inches, about two-thirds the size of a sheet of paper, to call its own. The crowded conditions lead to cannibalism and other destructive behavior, so the birds’ beaks are cut off at an early age, a procedure that could be likened to cutting off a child’s finger tips, in terms of its impact on the animals’ dexterity and sensory experience. The industry favors windowless warehouses with prolonged artificial light to stimulate maximum egg-laying. When egg production drops off, food is withheld as a way of sending the birds into a forced molt followed by another round of egg laying before being disposed of.

The adoption of practices like these has paralleled the spread of salmonella as a bacterial contaminant in eggs — the reason you’re cautioned not to eat raw cookie dough or Caesar dressing anymore. Crowded conditions, genetic uniformity and the widespread use of antibiotics in industrial agriculture favor the development of new and potentially more devastating pathogens.

All those new kinds of eggs for sale in the supermarket should help you opt out of this system, if you’re willing to spend a little more, right? Well, that depends. Here’s a short guide to some of the most common label claims found in the supermarket egg case:

  “Cage Free,” “Free Range” or “Free Roaming.” None of these terms are currently regulated by the U.S. government, although there are some third-party verification programs (see below). Nevertheless, “free range” usually means the laying hens are raised in large flocks in big open warehouses rather than in stacked cages. They can walk around, flap their wings and preen their feathers a little. “Cage-free” does not mean outdoor access. “Free-range” implies some outdoor access, although it is probably very limited, and on dirt or concrete rather than pasture.

“Certified Humane.” Humane Farm Animal Care operates a certification program specifying that laying hens are uncaged, with access to perches, nest boxes and dust-bathing areas. There are stocking-density maximums but outdoor access is not required. Debeaking is allowed ; starvation to induce molting is prohibited.

“Certified Organic.” Production methods must comply with the USDA National Organic Program, including organic, vegetarian feed, no use of antibiotics and no cages. Debeaking and forced molting by starvation are allowed. Organic standards require producers to “maintain livestock living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of the animals.” How much access to the outdoors this requires for chickens is still being hotly debated. At this time, on large organic chicken farms, it may mean nothing more than a small door opening onto a concrete yard.

“Omega 3.” All eggs contain small amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, thought to be beneficial to human health. Omega-3 levels in eggs can be raised by supplementing the birds’ diet with things such as fish oil, flax seed or alfalfa meal (or by simply allowing the birds to forage on lawn or pasture).


Find Fresh Local Eggs

Want to find local, farm-fresh, real eggs in your area? Search your ZIP code at the following egg-ceptional Web sites:
Eat Well Guide













Saturday, June 1, 2013

Another Case Against GMO Foods


FOOD MATTERS

You are what you eat

ANOTHER CASE AGAINST GMO FOODS





 


By Timothy J. LaSalle

 


For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged agriculture's dependence on chemical inputs, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have yet to justify their role in a world desperate for more sustainable ways to produce healthier food for more people. In a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a summary of on-farm production levels of genetically modified crops showed less than marginal gains in actual yield. In fact, the review concluded that "no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops."

Let's Put GMO Food on the Shelf

Such findings beg the question: Who needs GMO food anyway? If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then they have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now three times greater than it was just a few years ago, they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming Roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is just being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!

GMO defenders cite net yield increases per acre due to weed and pest management traits, apparently comparing GMO-chemical regimes with non-GMO-chemical regimes in traditional intensive corn-soy production systems. They don't compare the genetically modified pest-management results with non-chemical systems where organic corn tolerates higher weed populations without yield loss, and where insect damage becomes insignificant in most years once basic crop rotations are established and soil health improves. It seems GMO defenders have failed to take the varying approaches of these two systems into account, which leaves us with only a chapter of the whole story.

GMO Food Just Doesn't Make Sense

Despite the failures of GMOs, it is clear that their developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact.

So what have consumers gained? Perhaps the answer is unclear. But I do know why we in the organic movement are so dead against GMO food. The answer is pretty simple: Genetically engineered seeds just don't make sense. How can a seed variety that is costly to patent (and legally can't be saved for replanting) help poor farmers around the world? How can a seed that needs increased levels of toxins to control weeds be the safest option, ecologically or from a human standpoint? How can a seed that is artificially injected with foreign proteins be harmless to eat?

GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences

Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.

As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects."

In the last few decades most of these health concerns have more than doubled, and, at times, tripled. The human body has not changed, but our diet undoubtedly has, and as of the 1990s, GMOs have become increasingly prevalent in our food supply. In her new book, The Unhealthy Truth, Robyn O'Brien outlines the logical connection between the astronomical increase in allergic response among our American population and our unbridled consumption of these altered foods. She states that almost 75 percent of our processed foods now contain neurotoxins, novel proteins, and allergens.

In Search of Safe Food

Meanwhile, we continue to consume these foods every day. Thanks to legislation and regulations shaped by the expansive lobbying efforts of GMO giants like Monsanto, we are not allowed to know which foods contain modified genes. Many European, Asian, and African countries have banned GMOs to protect their farming systems and food supplies, yet we are seemingly complacent that these controversial seeds have entered our food supply. In reality, about 92 percent of all U.S. soybean acreage is planted with GMO seed. Although you may not consume soy products outright, say in the form of soy milk or tofu, you are surely getting a heavy dose of GMO soy if you regularly eat non-organic processed foods. (Thanks to certification standards, when you buy organic you buy food grown without GMO seeds.)

With the tragic consequences of the chronic maladies mentioned above, why would we let these experimental seeds remain in our food source without demanding to know the long-term, generational effects they may have on human health? Why would we want our children to be the guinea pigs for brand-new, laboratory-created proteins that have undergone genetic modification?

First, we should demand our legislators implement a precautionary principle: GMOs should not be allowed into our food system until extensive long-term, third-party studies--not studies funded or in any way influenced by seed technology companies--have been performed. A less effective, but equally important, second is that all of our food must be clearly labeled if it contains GMO crop ingredients.

Source: www.treehugger.com

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE 'GMO FREE POCKET BOOK SHOPPING GUIDE'

Non-GMO Verified Products


Revised Seal copy



Verified Products

We encourage you to support the brands and products below in recognition of their laudable commitment to ensuring the sustained availability of non-GMO options, and their belief that consumers deserve an informed choice.

Retailers: Please click here to download a list of UPCs for verified products (05/16/2013)










The “Non-GMO Project Verified” Seal


Revised Seal copy




The “Non-GMO Project Verified” Seal

Helping you make informed shopping decisions


Revised Seal copy
The retailers who started the Non-GMO Project were motivated by a simple idea. They believed that consumers in North America should have access to clearly-labeled non-GMO food and products, now and in the future. That conviction continues to guide the Non-GMO Project, as North America’s only independent verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance.

What
does “Non-GMO Project Verified seal” mean?

The verification seal indicates that the product bearing the seal has gone through our verification process. Our verification is an assurance that a product has been produced according to consensus-based best practices for GMO avoidance:
  • We require ongoing testing of all at-risk ingredients—any ingredient being grown commercially in GMO form must be tested prior to use in a verified product.
  • We use an Action Threshold of 0.9%. This is in alignment with laws in the European Union, where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled. Absence of all GMOs is the target for all Non-GMO Project Standard compliant products. Continuous improvement practices toward achieving this goal must be part of the Participant’s quality management systems.
  • After the test, we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure ingredient integrity through to the finished product.
  • For low-risk ingredients, we conduct a thorough review of ingredient specification sheets to determine absence of GMO risk.
  • Verification is maintained through an annual audit, along with onsite inspections for high-risk products.
Learn more about the:
Are products bearing the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal GMO free?

Unfortunately, “GMO free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology.  In addition, the risk of contamination to seeds, crops, ingredients and products is too high to reliably claim that a product is “GMO free.” The Project’s claim offers a true statement acknowledging the reality of contamination risk, but assuring the shopper that the product in question is in compliance with the Project’s rigorous standard. The website url is included as part of the Seal to ensure that there is transparency for consumers who want to learn more about our verification. While the Non-GMO Project’s verification seal is not a “GMO free” claim, it is trustworthy, defensible, transparent, and North America’s only independent verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance.

What about the other products that I see on the store shelf that claim they are “GMO free?”

While you may see other claims regarding GMO status (e.g. “GMO free”), these are really not legally or scientifically defensible, and they are not verified by a third party. The Non-GMO Project is the only organization offering independent verification of testing and GMO controls for products in the U.S. and Canada. Buying products that are verified by our program is the best way to support the sustained availability of non-GMO choices in North America.

Does purchasing “Non-GMO Project Verified” products help make a difference?

Yes! As a non-profit organization, we are committed not only to verifying and labeling products, but also to supporting and coordinating efforts between seed breeders, farmers, processors and manufacturers. These efforts are allowing us to protect and even expand the availability of non-GMO seeds, ingredients and products.

If you have questions, please let us know. We love hearing from you and are happy to help in any way we can.