8 Beers That You Should Stop Drinking Immediately

8 Beers That You Should Stop Drinking Immediately

THE MIND UNLEASHED

on 24 May, 2014 at 00:33

Here are the 8 beers that are commonly found in bars in United States that you should stop drinking immediately.

Many of us choose what we eat very carefully, or at least dedicate our minimum attention to it. But when it comes to drinks, especially alcoholic beverages, we do little to make the best decisions for our health. Which is a HUGE mistake. All the work for your body can be ruined in a weekend out. While foods and non alcoholic beverages are required to list their ingredients and are monitored by the FDA, beer does not belong in either. Alcohol industry had lobbied for years to avoid labeling its ingredients. Some to protect its recipes, but most – to hide harmful ingredients.

Here’s some harmful ingredients that are commonly found in beer:

• GMO Corn Syrup
• GMO Corn
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
• Fish Bladder
• Propylene Glycol
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
• Natural Flavors
• GMO Sugars
• Caramel Coloring
• Insect-Based Dyes
• Carrageenan
• BPA
• & lots more!

1. NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE

The Newcastle beer has been found to contain caramel coloring. Class 3 and 4 caramel coloring is made from ammonia, which is classified as a carcinogen. While alcohol is a carcinogen itself, drinking it in moderation may decrease your chances at developing cancer. However, more added carcinogens will have the opposite effect. “The one and only” beer with extra cancer causing qualities.

2. BUDWEISER

One of the most popular beers, or most advertised is Budweiser. Budweiser contains genetically modified (GMO) corn. In 2007, Greenpeace discovered experimental GMO rice in Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser) beer.

3. CORONA EXTRA

I used to love Corona’s commercials. They were so peaceful and relaxing. That is until I found out that the beer contains GMO Corn Syrup and Propylene Glycol. Propylene Glycol is controversial, and is said to may be potentially harmful to your health.

4. MILLER LITE

This is another very popular beer in America that contains GMOs. Miller Lite contains GMO corn and corn syrup. It’s “GMO time”.

5. MICHELOB ULTRA

Less popular but still readily available Michelob beer, should be eliminated from your choices. This beer has been found to contain a genetically modified sweetener (GMO dextrose).

6. GUINNESS

Guinness is often praised for it’s smoothness.  However, several investigations proved that Guinness ingredients are quite disturbing. The beer contains isinglass, an ingredient which comes from fish bladder and high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup has been long banned from many stores and drinks.

Update: Good news! We’ve contacted Guinness and they have stated that they no longer use high fructose corn syrup in any of their beers.

7. COORS LIGHT

Coors light is a drink that is very popular at bars and among college students.  Mostly because its cheap. The beer contains GMO corn syrup.

8. PABST BLUE RIBBON

Pabst Blue Ribbon contains GMO corn and GMO corn syrup.

HEALTHY BEER ALTERNATIVES

So when it comes to beer you have to be very careful. Your best option is to find a microbrewery that you can trust. As with everything, try to avoid cheap, low-quality products. Bars may offer Coors Light, Miller Lite or Budweiser specials, but they are cheap for a reason. The rest of the world is banning GMOs everywhere, while USA is lagging years behind, and only several states offer GMO labeling laws. Try to stay away from any American beers. Choose organic beer. Beers that contain 100% organic labels, have to have ingredients that are all 100% organic. While an “organic” label just means 95% of it will be organic.  European beer is most likely to be safe from GMO ingredients but unfortunately, most other beer contains GMO artificial ingredients, stabilizers, grains and preservatives, plus, HFCS.

GMO FREE BEERS:

Organic Beers (Unpasteurized & Unfiltered) 

• Wolaver’s – all beers
• Lamar Street – Whole Foods label (brewed by Goose Island)
• Bison – all beers
• Dogfish Head (organic when ingredients available)
• Fish Brewery Company – Fish Tale Ales
• Lakefront Brewery – Organic ESB
• Brooklyn – (organic when ingredients are available)
• Pinkus – all beers
• Samuel Smiths – Samuel Smiths Organic Ale
• Wychwood – Scarecrow Ale

Non-Organic Beers (Unpasteurized & Unfiltered)

• Sierra Nevada – all choices
• Duck Rabbit – Brown Ale, Porter, Amber Ale, Milk Stout
• Dogfish Head- 60 Minute IPA, Shelter Pale Ale, Chicory Stout
• Shipyard – Summer Brew
• Victory Brewery – Whirlwind
• North Coast – Blue Star
• Bridgeport – IPA (Bottle conditioned)
• Ayinger – all choices
• Royal Oak – Pale Ale
• Fraziskaner – Hefeweisse and Dunkel Weisse
• Weihenstephaner – Hefe Weissbier
• Maisel’s – Weisse
• Hoegaarden – Belgian Wit

Other

• Heineken
• Steamwhistle
• Amstel Light
• Duchy Original Ale Organic
• Mill Street Brewery
• Fuller’s Organic
• Nelson Organic Ale
• Natureland Organic

SHARE THIS WITH FELLOW BEER DRINKERS

It’s important to expose companies that use harmful ingredients in our products. This information is hidden from the public with millions of dollars of false advertising, laws, etc. You can always vote with your money. As this information about GMO beers spreads, we will see a decrease in production of these beers and the companies may eliminate the harmful ingredients altogether. Most importantly, when you hang out with your friends, you will be able to share beer that’s more delicious and healthier.

If you have any additional information about GMO or non-gmo beers, or want to correct some of the information, simply e-mail us or leave a comment with evidence bellow.

Sources:

atsdr.cdc.gov

foodbabe.com

greenpeace.org

Credits:

This article first appeared on organics.org via whydontyoutrythis.com

Featured image courtesy of: Villagegreennetwork.com

Even Vegans Will Enjoy These ‘Meats’

Jane Says: Even Vegans Will Enjoy These ‘Meats’

Mock proteins can be fun and delicious, but they don’t solve all the environmental problems associated with animal products.

TAKE ACTION

SHARE

FacebookTwitterGoogle +1RedditEmail

Comments

More

Share with your friends

TumblrGmailHotmailY! MailAOL MailLinked InDiggStumbleupon

Lentil burger (Photo: Jennifer/Flickr)

May 21, 2014 By Jane Lear

Jane Lear was on staff at 'Gourmet' for almost 20 years.

full biofollow me 

“As someone who recently became a vegetarian inching toward vegan, I’m fascinated by all the faux meat products I see at the store. Veggie burgers are one thing, but “chicken” strips and “fish” fillets? What’s the story with the fake stuff?”

 

—Richard Coyle

 

Happy National Vegetarian Week! There is little that is new under the sun, and that also goes for “fake meat”—a term with a negative connotation but certainly catchier than “plant-based protein” or “meat analog.” This particular type of culinary trompe l’oeil (French for “that which deceives the eye”) has its roots most notably in Japan, a country that’s home to two ancient, intertwined examples of the art form: mukimono (decorative vegetable carving) and modoki, the mock foods of the temple cuisine that originated in the seventh century.

“The inherent respect for life that eschews consumption of animal products as food has deep history in Japan,” wrote Japanese-food authority Elizabeth Andoh in a paper presented at the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery in 2008. “Japan’s indigenous spiritual orientation, Shinto, discouraged the regular consumption of animals for food. When Buddhism arrived in Japan from mainland Asia in the late 6th century, previous reticence turned to prohibition. The first edict to officially ban meat-eating was proclimated by Emperor Temmu in 675 AD, and from that point Japanese culinary activity focused on the plant world.”

Human nature is nothing if not complicated and contrary, and Andoh took care to elaborate: “A longing for meat, or at least hefty and hearty fare [...] continued, especially among the privileged classes that had become accustomed to feasting on foods such as wild game and fowl after sporting hunts. The Heian Period (794–1185 AD) saw the development of a host of modoki dishes. These ‘mock’ foods seemed to be one thing (wild goose, duck, eel, or perhaps an omelet) when in reality they were something quite different (mostly derived from soy).”

Modoki foods engage the chef and diner in a special relationship, Andoh added. “The culinary practitioner must have keen powers of observation to discern what shape, texture, color gradation, flavor, or aroma will convey the essence of that food or object to the person who is dining. In turn, the diner must come to the table with a vivid imagination and a sense of humor. Japan’s culinary trompe l’oeil is not about deception, but rather about kando (awe) and kansha (appreciation).” Perhaps it’s time to start looking at tofu turkey—the Rodney Dangerfield of the meat-alternative universe—in a different light.

Andoh gave examples of several modoki dishes that have been enjoyed for centuries and probably much longer. Included in an 18th-century recipe collection called Tofu Hyaku Chin(“One Hundred Unusual Things to Do With Tofu”), is gan modoki (“evocation of wild goose”), a mock meatball made from mashed tofu mixed with bits of marine and terrestrial vegetables. Bound together with viscous, grated yam, the meatball is deep-fried, then simmered in a soy-tinged broth. “Still a tremendously popular menu item, pre-made ganmo (the shortened ‘nickname’ used currently to describe these dumplings) are sold at every tofu shop and supermarket in Japan,” she wrote.

In the United States, the increasing demand for mock meats was the subject of a recent piece in the business section of The New York Times. It’s fueled by “trends as varied as increased vegetarianism and concerns over the impact of industrial-scale animal husbandry on the environment,” wrote Stephanie Strom. “For whatever reason, the desire to replace meat proteins with proteins derived from plants is spreading, although the market is still minuscule. Mintel, a market research firm, reports that sales of meat alternatives grew 8 percent from 2010 to 2012, when sales hit $553 million.”

Morningstar Farms accounts for more than 60 percent of the market (the brand’s product line includes veggie dogs, burgers made from ingredients such as black beans and chickpeas, and breakfast sandwiches), while new companies, such as Gardein and Beyond Meat, have sprung up in the past five years or so.

Are Tofu Burritos the Future of Mexican Fast Food?

“Some investors look at the development of viable meat alternatives as a sustainability issue,” Strom wrote. “ ‘Frankly, we’ve never said we’ve interested in food,’ said Randy Komisar, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, a venture capital firm that has backed Google and Facebook—and Beyond Meat.” The story continues: “Among the problems he listed that his firm’s investment in Beyond Meat are intended to address are land and water use, stress on global supple chains, and the world’s growing population. ‘These are venture-scale problems with venture-scale returns,’ Mr. Komisar said.”

They’re all that and then some, but just how environmentally friendly are meat alternatives? Not so much, as it turns out. In a November 2012 market trends piece on Food Navigator, Caroline Scott-Thomas writes that the fractionation process used to separate soy and wheat, for example, into their constituent parts—proteins, oils, and soluble and insoluble fibers—is often highly energy intensive. She quotes Atze van der Goot, associate professor of food process engineering at Wageningen University, who spoke at the European Federation of Food Science and Technology, in Montpellier, France: “ ‘Due to the inefficiencies in the process to make meat alternatives, we lose completely the environmental benefits.’ ” But he went on to suggest that perhaps complete fractionation was not necessary. “ ‘Partial fractionation might be sufficient, and partial fractionation is of course more energy efficient,’ ” he said. Wageningen’s Jacqueline Berghout, who researches meat analogs derived from—get this—lupin seeds, built on his idea in another session. “ ‘First we take the whole product apart and then we add [the constituents] together to make a product out of it...because we are focused on the purity of the fractions,” she explained, concluding, “Is it really necessary to make these pure ingredients? No food consists of one single ingredient.”

Even if meat analogs, which are primarily made from soy, can be produced in a more sustainable way, there’s no getting around that today soy is a controversial ingredient health-wise, and if it’s not organic, it’s genetically modified. Meat alternatives also may contain higher levels of sodium than their real meat counterparts.

The takeaway? Meat alternatives are a choice. No one says you have to incorporate them into your diet, but if you’re curious, give them a try. Especially if a family member balks at a cauliflower “steak” or a portobello mushroom burger, a meat-alternative chili or lasagna, for instance, or chicken salad may help pave the way for more meatless meals. Do some comparison shopping beforehand, and look for products with as few (and non-G.M.) ingredients as possible, with low sodium. 

Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill

Two articles:

Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill

• By Will Allen, Cedar Circle Farm, Vermont, and Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association 
  April 4, 2012
  Straight to the Source 
  

The world's most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.

Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont's Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Instead, they're calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.

What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont's "right to know" bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after a Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a "low appetite" for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to "go it alone" against Monsanto in court.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation. 

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto's minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge's decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment "right" to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitols. The company's stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens' Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as "natural."

All of Monsanto's fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16. 

During the hearings, the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill - more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMOs are safe and that consumers don't need to know if their food is contaminated with them.

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto's lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto's case. She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them "eating too much organic food" during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women's blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto's mutant Bt in the women's blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO right foods.

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately, in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto's biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

Vermont activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website http://www.vtrighttoknow.org or the Facebook pagehttp://www.facebook.com/vtrighttoknow of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

*   *   *

Will Allen is the co-manager of Cedar Circle Farm in East Thetford, Vermont. He is also the Author of The War on Bugs , a history of farm pesticides and fertilizers since 1810. He is on the policy advisory boards of The Organic Consumers Association and Willing Hands. He has attended all of the agriculture committee hearings on H-722, where the testimony referred to above was delivered.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Millions Against Monsanto campaign. He also is a member of the Steering Committee of the California Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and co-author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. 

The Great Boycott: Monsanto and the GMA

• By Ronnie Cummins 
  Organic Consumers Association, May 14, 2104 
  

For related articles and information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and ourMillions Against Monsanto page.

Defying repeated threats of a lawsuit from Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), on May 8, Peter Shumlin, Governor of Vermont, signed a historic bill requiring food manufacturers to label genetically engineered (GE) foods, and to drop the practice of labeling GE foods as “natural” or “all natural.” 

On May 9, true to its word, the GMA confirmed that it will sue Vermont in federal court to overturn H. 112. 

Vermont is prepared to fight back. The state has already established a “food fight” legal defense fund. Legal analysts sayVermont will likely win. 

Vermont isn’t the only state up against the multi-billion dollar lobbying group. The GMA, whose 300-plus members include Monsanto and Dow, Coca-Cola and General Mills, is pushing a bill in Congress that would preempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws. 

It’s time for consumers in every state to band together to defeat the GMA’s full-on assault, not only on Vermont, not only on consumers’ right to know what’s in our food, but on states’ rights and on our basic freedoms to protect our health and our communities.

Here’s how we do it. We boycott every product, including the natural and organic brands, owned by members of the GMA. We flood their Facebook pages, tarnish their brand names. We pressure financial institutions, pension funds and mutual funds to divest from Monsanto and the other GMA companies. 

Our motto for Monsanto and GMA products must become: Don’t buy them. Don’t sell them. Don’t grow them. And don’t let your financial institution, university, church, labor union or pension fund invest in them.

As soon as the GMA files a lawsuit against Vermont, the Organic Consumers Association, joined by a growing coalition of public interest groups, will launch a boycott and divestment campaign directed against all of the 300 GMA companies and their thousands of brand name products—including foods, beverages, seeds, home and garden supplies, pet food, herbicides and pesticides. 

A new balance of power

Monsanto and the GMA have until now successfully blocked popular GMO labeling legislation in over 30 states. They’ve defeated, by a razor-thin margin, two high-profile ballot initiatives, in California (2012) and Washington (2013). And they’ve intimidated Connecticut and Maine into including trigger clauses in those states’ GMO labeling laws, successfully delaying their implementation. 

Funding for this anti-consumer, anti-right-to-know lobbying and advertising effort topped $100 million in 2012-2014, including $12 million in illegally laundered donations to I-522, the Washington State GMO labeling ballot initiative of 2013. All of that money has come from the 300 chemical, seed, supermarket, grain, pharmaceutical and food corporations, including Monsanto and the other Gene Giants, who make up the GMA. 

Until now the GMA colossus has ruled, not only in Washington D.C., but in all 50 states. But now that Vermont has passed a trigger-free GMO labeling law, and Oregon is poised to do the same in November, the balance of power has shifted.

Monsanto, the GMA and their allies are in panic mode. Because they know that when companies are forced to label or remove GMOs, and also are forced to drop the fraudulent practice of labeling GE-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural,” in one state, they will have to do it in every state. Just as they’ve been forced to do in Europe, where mandatory GMO labeling has been in effect since 1997.

GMA members and corporate agribusiness hate labeling, because it forces them to reveal all of the hazardous GMOs, chemicals and drug residues lurking in the billions of dollars of foods, beverages, seeds, grains and pesticides they sell. It’s no wonder that Monsanto and GMA’s bill in Congress--a bill they’ve named the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014—has been renamed the “DARK” (Denying Americans the right to know) Act.

Let the boycott begin

We absolutely must defeat the impending GMA lawsuit against Vermont. This will require us to raise money and provide legal help to the state. 

Equally important, we need to intensify our mass education, grassroots lobbying and marketplace pressure so we can defeat Monsanto and the GMA Big Food/Chemical lobby in the court of public opinion, too. If you would like to donate to this effort click here. 

But there are other ways we can use our dollars to defeat the GMA. We can refuse to invest, even indirectly through retirement and mutual funds, in those companies. We can pressure institutional investors like Fidelity, Vanguard and State Street to dump their stock in these companies.

And we can boycott all of the 300 GMA companies and their more than 6,000 brand name products—including foods, beverages, seeds, home and garden supplies, pet food, herbicides, and pesticides.  

Where to start? As part of this Great Boycott, pro-organic consumer groups will put a special emphasis on boycotting the “Traitor Brands,” those organic and so-called “natural” brands owned and marketed by GMA members.

Health-conscious and green-minded consumers often inadvertently support the GMA when they buy brands like Honest Tea, Kashi, Odwalla and others whose parent companies, all members of the GMA, have donated millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California (Prop 37) and Washington State (I-522). (Take the boycott pledge here.) 

These Traitor Brands include, among others: 

PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's 
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic
Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba
Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread
McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8959#sthash.rJNvUYvM.dpuf

PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's 
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic
Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba
Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread
McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen - See more at: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8959#sthash.rJNvUYvM.dpuf

PepsiCo ($4.8M) - IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappucino 
Coca-Cola ($3.2M) - Honest Tea, Odwalla 
Nestle ($3M) - Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf tea 
Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M) - Boca Burgers, Green and Black's 
General Mills ($2.1M) - Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen 
ConAgra Foods ($2M) - Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays 
Kelloggs ($1.1M) - Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms 
Campbells ($980k) - Plum Organics, Wolfgang Puck organic soups 
Smuckers ($900k) - R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic Hershey's ($880k) - Dagoba Bimbo Bakeries ($560k) - Earthgrains bread McCormick ($400k) - Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen 

Why not just boycott the conventional GMA parent company brands?

Because those of us who support organics rarely buy products like Coca-Cola, Diet Pepsi, or Kellogg’s Genetically-Modified-Sugar-Coated Frosted Flakes, or a packet of Monsanto seeds or a spray bottle of Roundup or 2, 4-D. The only way to pressure Big Food and the Gene Giants is to get millions of conscious consumers to boycott the brands we actually buy. 

Let’s be clear. Junk Food and beverage companies who are members of the GMA are gobbling up organic and “natural” brands because they recognize the huge profit potential in the fast-growing organic and natural markets. They want our business. If we stop buying their brands, they know there’s a good chance we’ll find alternative brands. And we might never look back.

Seven ways to fight back

There are about 50 popular organic and natural “Traitor Brands” (owned by GMA members). It’s easy for most of us to boycott those brands. But how do we boycott the entire 6,000-product inventory of GMA member-owned brands, especially those of us who don’t shop for those brands in supermarkets?

Here are seven ways to fight back against Monsanto and all the Corporate Bullies of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

(1)    Stop buying all non-organic processed foods. Even if they are certified organic, don’t buy any Traitor Brand processed foods or beverages. Ninety percent of the foods Americans buy or consume are heavily processed, deliberately laced with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, contaminated with dyes, preservatives, pesticides, GMOs, and drug residues. If you want to be healthy, if you want to avoid cancer, heart attacks, or obesity, build your diet around whole foods, especially raw fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, (coconut oil, avocadoes, pastured meat, dairy, and eggs, nuts, and whole grains) and nuts.

(2)    Patronize grocers, coops and community restaurants that serve organic, cooked-from-scratch, local food.
Many restaurants, especially chain restaurants (Chipotlé is a rare exception), sell many of the brands owned by GMA members. 

(3)    Cook at home with healthy organic ingredients.

(4)    Buy only heirloom, open-pollinated, and/or organic seeds.

(5)    Boycott all lawn and garden inputs (chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) unless they are “OMRI Approved,” which means they are allowed in organic production.

(6)    Read the labels on everything you buy. If a GMA member company owns the product, don’t buy it. Given the greed and reckless disregard for public health and the environment typical of GMA corporations, chances are these products aren’t good for you and the environment anyway.

(7)    Download the Buycott app for your smartphone and join OCA's new campaign, "Buy Organic Brands that Support Your Right to Know" so you can scan products before you buy them.

In this age of the Internet and social media, consumer boycotts, divestment campaigns and other forms of marketplace pressure are more powerful than ever. Please join and support the Organic Consumers Association’s “Great Boycott” of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association today. Let’s show Monsanto and the GMA we mean business.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director for the Organic Consumers Association.

Antibiotic Resistance Is Now Rife across the Entire Globe

Antibiotic Resistance Is Now Rife across the Entire Globe

A first-ever World Health Organization assessment of the growing problem calls for rapid changes to avoid the misery and deaths of a potential "post-antibiotic era" 

Apr 30, 2014


By Dina Fine Maron

Image: FDA

Dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria and other pathogens have now emerged in every part of the world and threaten to roll back a century of medical advances. That’s the message from the World Health Organization in its first global report on this growing problem, which draws on drug-resistance data in 114 countries.

“A post antibiotic-era—in which common infections and minor injuries can kill—far from being an apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the 21st century,” wrote Keiji Fukuda, WHO’s assistant director general for Health Security, in an introduction to the report. The crisis is the fruit of several decades of overreliance on the drugs and careless prescribing practices as well as routine use of the medicines in the rearing of livestock, the report noted.

Antibiotic resistance is putting patients in peril in both developing and developed countries, as bacteria responsible for an array of dangerous infections evolve resistance to the drugs that once vanquished them.

Gonorrhea, once well treated by antibiotics, is once again a major public health threat due to the emergence of new, resistant strains. Drugs that were once a last resort treatment for the sexually transmitted disease—which can lead to infertility, blindness and increased odds of HIV transmission if left untreated—are now the first-line treatment and are sometimes ineffective among patients in countries such as the U.K., Canada, Australia, France, Japan, Norway, South Africa, Slovenia and Sweden.

Drugs to treat Klebsiella pneumoniae—a common intestinal bacteria that can cause life-threatening infections in intensive care unit patients and newborns—no longer work in more than half of patients in some countries. And fluoroquinolones, drugs used to treat urinary tract infections, are also ineffective in more than half of sufferers in many parts of the world. Efforts to limit the spread of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria and HIV are also all under threat due to increasing bacterial resistance.

Although the development of resistance is to be expected over time, overuse of the drugs has accelerated the process by supplying additional selective pressure, noted the report, which was authored by an extensive team of researchers with WHO. And there are few drugs to replace the ones that are now ineffective: The last entirely new class of antibacterial drugs was discovered 27 years ago, according to the report.

WHO warns that the situation could have sweeping effects on global medicine, economics and societies unless global actions are taken swiftly. A dearth of effective antibiotics will mean that infected patients will need more extensive care, require longer hospital stays and die in greater numbers.

To tackle the problem, the report calls for global, coordinated actions on the scale of those that nations are taking to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The report recommends a multipronged approach. In many cases, WHO noted, available diagnostic tests can already be used to help identify the bacteria that fueled an infection—allowing doctors to select more targeted drug treatments instead of resorting to broad-spectrum medications that exacerbate drug resistance. The problem is that such tests take time to run and thus prescribers often forgo the tests and migrate toward those broad-spectrum drugs. Developing faster tests is therefore crucial, according to the report. The agency also proposes renewed focus—and standardized methods—to track resistant strains across the globe. There is currently no global consensus on methodology and data collection in this area.

There are also essential everyday solutions that communities and clinicians should adopt—including better hygiene practices by health care workers, such as washing hands more frequently and vaccinating populations against key diseases to reduce the need for antibiotics in the first place. Patients, too, have a vital part to play by using antibiotics only when they are prescribed, WHO said.

The assessment, collected information on nine particularly troublesome bacteria from 114 countries that track data on at least one of the microorganisms and the antibiotics used to treat them.

Although limited by significant data gaps, the report noted that in the case of many of these bacteria, resistance levels to first-line drugs have reached 50 percent or more in at least half of the countries analyzed. As a result, health care providers must frequently rely on last-resort drugs. “It is terrifying in scope. This is a massive public health problem that is just starting to bubble to the surface,” says Brad Spellberg, associate professor of medicine at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor–U.C.L.A. Medical Center. As the global usage of last-resort drugs grows, resistance to these drugs also accelerates, compounding the crisis. With fewer drug options, the WHO report points out, patients who live in poverty or lack health insurance have nowhere to turn for effective treatments.

“We are already seeing this,” says Stuart Levy, director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University School of Medicine, who assisted with the WHO report. “For respiratory diseases in Uganda, we had a multidrug-resistant pneumococcus being treated with recommended drugs—but the bacteria were already 90 percent resistant.” Alternative drugs, in that setting, were not readily available.