Who Owns Organic?

Posted on August 24, 2019 by marcia

Infographic: A useful tool to find out who owns organic food

Lindsay Oberst · Published January 28, 2016 · 2 min read

Summary

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them. The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003, provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the…

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.

The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003, provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the top 100 food processors in North America.

According to The Cornucopia Institute, this chart — authored by Dr. Phil Howard, an Associate Professor in the Department of Community Sustainability at Michigan State — empowers consumers to see at a glance which companies dominate the organic marketplace.

See the updated version below. (Click on the image to view a larger version,
and then click on it again for even larger detail.) Or see a PDF version here.

If you find the graphic hard to read, you might also wish to check out this graphic created by The Washington Post, which was published in May 2015 and shows 92 organic food brands who are owned by some of the nation’s largest food processors.

Major changes since the last version in May 2013

WhiteWave’s December 2013 acquisition of Earthbound Farm, the nation’s largest organic produce supplier, for $600 million.

Coca-Cola acquired a 10% stake in Green Mountain Coffee for $1.25 billion.

Bimbo Bakeries (Mexico) purchased Canada Bread from Maple Leaf Foods (Canada) for $1.7 billion.

The corporate takeover of organic food

According to a press release from The Cornucopia Institute,

“The chart shows that many iconic organic brands are owned by the titans of junk food, processed food, and sugary beverages—the same corporations that spent millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. General Mills (which owns Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, and LaraBar), Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla), J.M. Smucker (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic), and many other corporate owners of organic brands contributed big bucks to deny citizens’ right to know what is in their food.”

“Consumers who want food companies that embody more of the original organic ideals would do well to seek out products from independent organic firms,” Dr. Howard advises. “Given the very uneven playing field they are competing in, independent organic processors are unlikely to survive without such support.”

15 Organic brands that are still independent

Dr. Howard also created the chart, Organic Industry Structure: Major Independents and Their Subsidiary Brands. The independent brands include:

Alvarado Street Bakery
Amy’s Kitchen
Bob’s Red Mill
Cedarlane
Cliff Bar: Luna
Eden Foods
Equal Exchange
Frontier Natural Products: Simply Organic
Lundberg Family Farms
Nature’s Path: Country Choice Organic, Enviro-Kidz
Organic Valley: Organic Prairie
Pacific Natural Foods
Sno Pac
Springfield Creamery: Nancy’s
Traditional Medicinals
Yogi Tea

Dr. Howard observes, “I expect more deals to occur, since organic foods sales continue to increase faster than sales of conventional foods, and corporations are flush with cash and/or access to cheap credit.”

from: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/organic-food-infographic/

“Organic Ready” Corn

Posted on August 11, 2015 by marcia

ould This New ‘Organic Ready’ Corn Help End GMO Cross Pollination and Monsanto?

It could be released as early as one year

by Christina Sarich
Posted on August 11, 2015

In the world of Round Up Ready corn and other genetically modified crops, we’re in dire need of another ‘solution.’ Frank Kutka has been working on ‘Organic Ready’ corn for over 15 years as an all-around answer to biotech’s cancer causing crops.

Kutka is a plant breeder who has been attempting to grow corn that naturally resists GM crop contamination through cross-pollination, thus eliminating Monsanto’s prevalently grown GMO corn from infesting organic farmer’s crops.

Kutka has been searching for traits in the ancient grain teosinte which makes it very unlikely that GM pollen can enter corn silk, thus making cross-pollination nearly impossible. He explains:

“The trait has been known and used for decades. It was first used in popcorn in the 1950s and then in white corn varieties in the 1970s… It greatly reduces the risk of out-crossing.”

Kutka has been searching for this pollen-blocking trait since 2001, when he was a student at Cornell University. If he is successful, then it will make the job of organic farmers much easier, since many of them face contamination of crops that they work very hard to keep organic, paying exorbitant fees to obtain a USDA organic label.

Needless to say, Kutka, like all farmers growing organic crops, faces an enormous challenge. U.S. farmers currently plant millions of acres of GMO corn, among other GMO crops. Around 93% of the year’s corn crop was genetically modified.

While this makes Monsanto happy, it leaves those looking for non-contaminated, heirloom, organic, non-GMO corn a little miffed, to say the least. These millions of acres of corn can also easily contaminate other crops – including those which are not even corn, just because Mother Nature continues to work. GMO genes cross over into other plants, causing them to contain variant DNA like the mother plant. This is many argue that GMO crops must be banned, and that GMO labeling simply isn’t enough.

In 2014, a survey of organic farmers from 17 states, predominantly in the Midwest, shows 67% of farmers planned to delay planting corn so their crops would pollinate later than their neighbors’ GM corn, at an average cost of $16,000. Delaying the growing season is just one expense organic farmers have to contend with in competition with corporate seed monopolies.

Kutka hopes his ‘Organic Ready’ corn will be able to remedy cross-pollination of ‘Roundup Ready’ crops within the year.

Lifestyle Changes for Survival

Posted on June 22, 2015 by marcia

14 Ways to Protect You, Your Family, and Friends from the NWO Agenda

Dees Illustration

By Paul A. Philips

The price of ignorance towards the NWO (New World Order) agenda could be very costly. Fall for any of its carefully cultivated illusions and you could end up broke, losing property, become seriously ill or even end up dead.

Desperate measures are indeed needed for desperate times. Big black totalitarian clouds loom on the horizon…

The psychopathic world ruling elite owning the banks, weapons, gold, drugs and oil … while having the politicians, police, military and mass media, etc. in their pockets are further tightening that unrelenting grip on the control of our money, health, food, water, air … and all the related science and technology for complete domination over the human populace…

In response, this is my heartfelt advice on how to prepare for survival in the unpredictable not-too-distant future. Here are 14 ways to protect you, your family and friends from the NWO agenda.

1. Stop giving attention to corporate-sponsored mainstream media news

Switch off the TV (Tel-Lie-Vision). Turn to alternative media sources instead for the truth. Learn to discern the differences between disinformation and the truth as in the case of the Internet.

2. Stop voting for any of the major political parties

By voting for one of these parties you’re only giving your power away to help the ruling criminals’ further advance their NWO agenda. Stop believing in Republican-Democrat; or, if you’re in the UK, the Lib-Lab-Con sock puppet campaigning shows backed and financed by T.H.E.Y (The Hierarchy Enslaving You).

It doesn’t matter who gets voted in. They’re all funded and backed by the ruling elite. So, whoever wins, the politicians who get in office will only be there to serve their lords and masters: The politicians serve the demands of the ruling elite instead of the wishes of we-the-people.

Yes, there are a growing number of people who know this, but many still don’t fully understand: Any advantages of selecting one party over the other because of a policy in your favour or to your advantage will only be a short-term payoff. In the end, if you vote for one of the major parties because of this then you’ll only have to suffer the far greater long-term cost for having chosen the party with their connections to the ruling elite’s agenda.

3. Detoxify yourself

Use specific foods as well as supplements to detoxify yourself of lifelong body pollution. Restore health and protect the body by removing fluoride, chloride, bromide, heavy metals, radiation and other noxious substances…

4. Drink good clean or filtered water

Avoid chemically impregnated tap or plastic bottled water. Use filters such as those using reverse osmosis to filter the water. Drink adequate supplies.

5. Eat organic food

Eat plenty of organic fruit and vegetables, seeds and nuts… Don’t begrudge the extra cost. In the long run it’s worth it.

6. Avoid junk food

Avoid junk food with its high sugar, salt and cheap/nasty trans-fats … for disease protection. Chemical-laden, processed, irradiated or GMO foods should be avoided.

Avoid cooking with microwave or non-stick coated or aluminium utensils which, in effect, turns the food into junk food that could lead to health problems through toxic contaminants.

Don’t cook food using high temperatures for too long. Extreme temperatures cause the nutritional value (vitamins and enzymes in particular) to denature and greatly reduce the food value.

7. Use natural or organic personal care products

This avoids toxic chemicals often found in non-organic personal care products…

8. Avoid low frequency EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) radiation

The list includes power grid lines, cell phones and towers, Wi-Fi sources, microwaves, breast cancer mammograms, microwaves, body scanner X-ray detectors such as those at airports … and compact fluorescent lighting (use LED [light emitting diode] clear or white lighting).

Don’t fall for the corporate-sponsored junk science brigade claiming that these EMF sources with their applications are okay. Anyone with a couple of investigative brain cells to rub together will find out that frequent long-term use has been known to cause a range of serious illnesses related to cancer, nervous, hormonal and behavioural problems…

9. Avoid vaccines and vaccinations

Vaccines are NOT safe and have been known to be ineffective. You could end up seriously ill, brain-damaged or even dead from these fraudulent big pharma money spinners to which the revenue-raking government and their paid-off media are only too happy to spread the related disinformation and lies…

10. Don’t fall for joining the military

Don’t become a sucker for the ruling elite’s secretly manufactured wars for power, profit, and political gain, planned population reduction agenda … I know, like other things mentioned in my list, this may come as quite a shock to some people.

11. Have toxic amalgam fillings removed

Mercury amalgam fillings have been known to cause brain damage, lower IQ, contribute to depression and harbour disease-causing bacteria … See a biologic or holistic dentist to get them removed and replaced by safe alternatives such as Zirconium Implants (DON’T use metal-based or plastic BPA resins). Don’t support dentists who use mercury amalgam or fluoride.

Dental decay can be prevented with good nutrition; like, for example, using coconut oil as a mouthwash since it contains the antibacterial lauric acid.

12. Maintain well-stocked supplies of food and water

In case of a crisis, stock up with a few weeks supply of food and water in the hope that by then things would have died down with normality somewhat resumed. The crisis could be a financial one such as a currency collapse, or a fake war, a staged attack (fake alien invasion perhaps, you never know??) or a HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) secret weather modification … etc., used for inducing chaos by the ruling elite and their associates as an excuse to declare martial war on citizens….

13. Maintain self-sufficiency

In line with 12, grow your own food. There are indeed many excellent websites advising how this can be done. I have been saying that self-sufficiency, especially in the way of home-grown food, is a major factor in workable communities. Discernment and unity are other major factors.

Have sufficient physical cash on standby in case of emergency: You may want to consider converting some of your hard-earned cash into gold or silver coins as a good investment.

Try looking at non-power grid alternative energy supplies to power up your home. How about solar panels or batteries or supplemental wind generators … etc.? Electric vehicles would also not be a bad idea.

14. Spread the word

“Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.” – Albert Einstein

This is my ultimatum:

Wake up! Use this or similar pieces to spread the word to your family and friends to get active.

You can read more from Paul A. Philips at his site New Paradigm, where this article first appeared.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/14-ways-to-protect-you-your-family-and.html

Stuff We Buy Into

Posted on September 7, 2014 by marcia

37 lies Americans tell themselves to avoid confronting reality

Sunday, September 07, 2014

(NaturalNews) Have you noticed the incredible detachment from reality exhibited by the masses these days? The continued operation of modern society, it seems, depends on people making sure they don’t acknowledge reality (or try to deal with it). “Denial” is what keeps every sector of civilization humming along: medicine, finance, government, agriculture and more.

The trouble with the denial approach is that eventually the lies collide with reality. Until that day comes, however, happy-go-lucky Americans are merrily enjoying their courtship with self delusion, repeating the following 37 lies to themselves as if they were true:

Lie #1) All FDA-approved medications are safe to consume in any combination, because the FDA protects the public.

Lie #2) Food prices keep going up because inflation is a natural force that can’t be halted.

Lie #3) The mainstream media is telling me the truth when it reports on world events.

Lie #4) Chemical food additives are tested for their safety before being widely used across the food supply.

Lie #5) We can all pump groundwater out of the ground forever, and it will never run out.

Lie #6) We can also pump fossil fuels out of the ground forever, and they will never run out, either. Why worry?

Lie #7) If anything bad happens in terms of a national emergency or natural disaster, the government will take care of me.

Lie #8) It doesn’t matter where my food comes from as long as it’s cheap and delicious.

Lie #9) GMOs must be safe to eat because a bunch of scientists paid by the biotech industry all tell each other that GMOs are safe and therefore have reached “scientific consensus.”

Lie #10) Government debt doesn’t matter because the government can simply create more money any time they want.

Lie #11) Mercury in vaccines must be safe to inject into children, otherwise the CDC and FDA wouldn’t allow it to be used in vaccines.

Lie #12) Organic produce is a waste of money. I’ll buy conventional produce treated with pesticides and herbicides because the cost of all the cancer treatments I’ll need 20 years later will be covered by Obamacare anyway.

Lie #13) The history taught to children in public schools is a true and accurate history. Columbus was best friends with the Indians, too!

Lie #14) Swallowing fluoride chemicals is good for babies and children, and that’s why cities put fluoride into public water supplies.

Lie #15) Flu shots prevent the flu. That’s why the package inserts for flu vaccines openly state there is no scientific evidence to support any conclusion that influenza vaccines prevent influenza.

Lie #16) Whatever is backed by “science” must be true. Science is never falsified by corrupt scientists or corporate agendas, and scientific conclusions are never wrong.

Lie #17) The global ecosystem can handle unlimited human pollution without any negative consequences. We can all continue to dump unlimited toxins into the environment.

Lie #18) Cell phone radiation is harmless. The reason we know that is because the cell phone companies hired scientists to say so.

Lie #19) If everybody else is doing something, it must be the right thing to do. After all, how could so many people be wrong?

Lie #20) We don’t need to store food for emergencies because there will always be more food available at the grocery store.

Lie #21) There’s no need to be concerned about Ebola or other infectious diseases in America because the vaccine companies can always and instantly create a new vaccine that works 100% of the time, with zero side effects.

Lie #22) Local police departments need battlefield military weapons, armored cars and body armor because the drug war demands it.

Lie #23) If I buy something at Whole Foods, it must be healthy and free from contaminants like toxic heavy metals. (Or is it really?)
Lie #24) My vote really counts in national elections. We live in a democracy where the People have power over the government.

Lie #25) My checking and savings accounts are perfectly safe no matter what happens because my bank is FDIC insured.

Lie #26) Raw dairy products are dangerous and deadly because the FDA told me so. Those horrible farmers selling raw dairy products should be locked away in prison.

Lie #27) My oncologist recommends chemotherapy treatment for me only because he cares about my wellbeing, not because his clinic sells the chemotherapy drugs at a huge profit.

Lie #28) The government isn’t secretly recording my phone calls or reading my emails. Why would they? I’ve done nothing wrong!

Lie #29) Commercial dog food is healthy and nutritious for dogs. Dog treats made in China are also trustworthy and free from contaminants like lead.

Lie #30) The only way to prevent infectious disease is with a vaccine. Vitamin D and healthy immune support have nothing to do with it.

Lie #31) After I pay off my house, I own it free and clear. (Think again: Property taxes mean you’re only “leasing” it from the county. Stop paying those taxes and you’ll find out very quickly who really owns your home.)

Lie #32) Google will do no evil, and the fact that the company is developing humanoid battlefield robots, autonomous drones and super-human quantum computing brain chips is nothing to worry about.

Lie #33) Cancer is caused entirely by bad luck (or smoking) and has nothing to do with the food I eat or chemicals in my personal environment.

Lie #34) The radiation release from Fukushima wasn’t that bad. Sure, it was many times larger than the Chernobyl disaster, but authorities say we have nothing to worry about.

Lie #35) Autism isn’t caused by vaccines, and the way we know is because the CDC scientist who admitted to a massive conspiracy of scientific fraud to bury the evidence linking vaccines to autism should not be believed.

Lie #36) All foods certified as “organic” are automatically free of toxic heavy metals and contaminants.

Lie #37) Human civilization is the only intelligent civilization in the entire galaxy. Anything else would simply be too scary to contemplate.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046776_popular_lies_Americans_state_of_denial.html#ixzz3CgVwkuuq

The Threats of ‘Big Organic”

Posted on August 6, 2014 by marcia

Walmarting Organics: Will the Growth of “Big Organic” Lower Food Quality, Weaken Standards, and Destroy Farmers’ Livelihoods?

July 22nd, 2014

Commentary by Mark Kastel

As Yogi Berra said, “It seems like déjà vu all over again.” In 2006 The Cornucopia Institute released a report accusing Walmart of cheapening the value of the organic label by sourcing products from industrial-scale factory farms and developing countries, including China.

At the time, Walmart announced that they would greatly increase the number of organic products they offered and price them at a target of 10% above the cost for conventional food. They failed miserably at that first attempt, eventually removing many of the organic items from their stores.

This past May, Walmart announced they will once again enter the organic arena, in earnest, with the goal of eliminating the premium price for organic food.

Since the announcement, Cornucopia has received numerous press inquiries asking if Walmart’s organic expansion is “good news or bad news” for the industry. My stock answer has been, as it was in 2006: If Walmart lends their logistical prowess to organic food, both farmers and consumers will be big winners by virtue of a more competitive marketplace. However, if the company applies their standard business model, and in essence Walmarts organics, then everyone will lose.

Organic family farmers in this country could see their livelihoods disintegrate the same way so many industrial workers saw their family-supporting wages evaporate as Walmart, Target and other big-box retailers put the screws to manufacturers—forcing a production shift to China and other low-wage countries.

Walmart became the nation’s largest organic milk retailer by partnering with the dairy giant Dean Foods/WhiteWave (Horizon Organic). They then introduced their own private-label organic milk packaged by Aurora Organic Dairy. Aurora, based in Boulder, Colorado, has faced a maelstrom of organic industry criticism and negative press for operating a number of industrial-scale dairies with thousands of cows confined in feedlot-like conditions. They were the subject of a USDA investigation that found the giant dairy had “willfully” violated 14 tenets of the federal organic standards.

This time around Walmart is keeping the sourcing of their organic products a secret by using a private-label supplier and marketing products under the Wild Oats brand, a former natural foods grocery chain briefly owned by Whole Foods before, in 2009, an antitrust rule forced it to divest its holdings (resulting in the eventual shutdown of the Wild Oats chain).

Walmart claims that each item in the line, to consist of about 100 packaged products including pasta, peanut butter, dried spices, and olive oil, will cost at least 25 percent less than other organic goods sold at their store, according to Consumer Reports.

I’ve always said that “private-label, store-brand organics” is an oxymoron. By its very nature the practice is secretive. Grocery chains want to pit supplier against supplier. They want the companies manufacturing their products to feel insecure knowing they could lose the business for a few pennies to a rival competitor. For that reason retailers don’t want their customers to become loyal to a specific brand-name supplier.

In contrast, most organic consumers are label readers. We want to know where our food is coming from, how it is produced and, if livestock are involved, how respectfully they are treated. None of that is possible with private-label products.

Target has taken a different approach. Although they have plenty of private-label brands (Archer Farms, Market Pantry, and Simply Balanced in their grocery aisles), they are also presenting a “curated” product line including many name brands owned by large agribusinesses that have invested in organics.

It should be noted that the product lines at Walmart and Target include both organic and conventional (“natural”) products under the same private-label brands.

Cornucopia’s 2006 report documenting the Walmart/factory-farm connection also highlighted the company’s decision to lower the per unit cost basis on organic products by collaborating with its long-time trading partner China.

Even if the organic certification process in China were not cause for serious concern—coupled with the fact that the USDA has provided little if any regulatory oversight there—food shipped around the world, burning fossil fuels and undercutting our domestic farmers, does not meet the consumer’s traditional definition of what is truly organic.

Meanwhile, Whole Foods Market announced that they are cutting many prices to meet increasing competition from mainstream retailers like Kroger, Safeway and now Walmart, and their stock plunged nearly 19% this past May.

“I don’t think consumers have any idea just how industrialized [mainstream organics] is becoming,” said best-selling food movement author Michael Pollan in an interview with the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “There are some real downsides to organic farming scaling up to this extent,” he added.

Both Pollan and I worry that the expansion of “Big Organic” will lower food quality, weaken standards and hurt small family farms.

There’s a reason that organic food costs more. It costs more to produce, and paying farmers a fair price has always been part of the deal. The claim that Walmart will be able to provide organic food that truly adheres to federal organic standards, without a premium price, seems questionable at best.

The last time Walmart rolled out organic foods on a large scale, The Cornucopia Institute caught them labeling “natural” food as organic. After an investigation by the USDA and making the commitment to take down fraudulent signage, the company was not prosecuted. Walmart obviously did not have the expertise, at the store level, to manage organics.

The gold standard in organic retailing remains the hundreds of member-owned food co-ops and independent natural foods grocery stores across the country. Many of them are like a farmers market seven days a week where you can also find reputable national brands. They also act as a portal for accessing the local food movement. Your community’s farmers market, or joining a CSA, can also provide your family with the highest quality organic food.

When Walmart and Target complete their product roll-out, you can be sure The Cornucopia Institute will publish a new report for our members, the public and the media. We will provide discussion and analysis as to whether these massive corporations have learned from their past failures relating to organics and are now offering a true competitive alternative in the marketplace.

This story originally appeared in The Cultivator, The Cornucopia Institute’s quarterly print publication available to members and online.

Walmarting Organics: Will the Growth of “Big Organic” Lower Food Quality, Weaken Standards, and Destroy Farmers’ Livelihoods?

FIndings: Organic vs Non-Organic Foods

Posted on July 24, 2014 by marcia

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Researchers from Newcastle University in England have reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on 343 peer-reviewed scientific studies in an effort to find out if organic foods contained greater nutritional value than conventional foods. The results will probably shock some, but will confirm what many people already knew; organic foods are indeed much healthier for human consumption than ‘conventional’ foods.

The study looked at existing research that had been conducted on the differences between organic and conventional foods, finding that there were some significant variations in the nutritional value between the two.

“We carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods”

The most important difference that researchers found was that organic foods contain a much higher amount of antioxidants than conventional crops. Antioxidants prevent oxidation in the body which combats certain diseases and cancers. A WSU press release noted that:

“consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.”

Shoppers often argue that organic foods are too pricy to purchase for an everyday diet. Well, if they contain more nutrition per serving, then the body would require less servings per meal. Logic indicates that by comparing price based on nutritional value rather than amount, shoppers can spend about the same if not less with organics.

Now the downside of eating organic foods is they contain less pesticides. Oh wait…thats right, pesticides are extremely harmful to the body! Researchers found that conventionally grown foods are three to four times more likely to contain pesticide residues. The study indicated that:

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Based on the research, the choice between organic foods and conventionally grown foods is a no-brainer. Organic foods are hands down a more nutritious and health promoting option. So, whether you’re deciding to plant a garden or shop for groceries, remember the important benefits of eating organic foods.

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Pro-GMO Scientist Retracts Studies

Posted on March 15, 2014 by marcia

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

March 11, 2014 | 227,702 views

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

Leading scientist for pro-GMO lobby, Dr. Pamela Ronald, recently retracted two studies. Her retracted research has in turn been cited by more than 120 other papers, causing a massive snowball effect of potentially invalidated research
The two now retracted studies formed the basis of her research program into how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria
With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire industry of biotechnology stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity
Genetically engineered foods have never been proven safe for consumption, and there are definitive correlations between the results from GMO animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor – one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald. A recent article in Independent Science News¹ questions whether she’ll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

“Her media persona… is to take no prisoners,” Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.² “After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him ‘a scourge on science’ who ‘couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.’ His opinions were “almost fact- and science-free” continued Ronald.

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: ‘After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.’“

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Public Face of GMOs Loses Scientific Credibility

Ronald’s research group claimed to have identified a molecule used by rice plants to detect pathogenic rice blight, as well as a quorum sensing molecule (meaning a molecule that can coordinate gene expression according to the density of the local population).

These two studies, both of which are now retracted,^3, ⁴ formed the basis of her research program at the University of California in Davis, which is investigating how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria.

Ronald blamed the erroneous work by long gone lab members from Korea and Thailand, referring to the errors as a “mix-up.” She didn’t name her bungling colleagues, however. And while media coverage applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing” by retracting the studies, the featured article⁵ questions whether she really deserves such accolades:

“[S]cientific doubts had been raised about Ronald-authored publications at least as far back as August 2012… German researchers had been unable to repeat Ronald’s discoveries… and they suggested as a likely reason that her samples were contaminated.

Furthermore, the German paper also asserted that, for a theoretical reason, her group’s claims were inherently unlikely. In conclusion, the German group wrote: ‘While inadvertent contamination is a possible explanation, we cannot finally explain the obvious discrepancies to the results…’

Pamela Ronald, however, did not concede any of the points raised by the German researchers and did not retract the Danna et al 2011 paper. Instead, she published a rebuttal.

The subsequent retractions, beginning in January 2013, however, confirm that in fact very sizable scientific errors were being made in the Ronald laboratory. But more importantly for the ‘Kudos to Pam’ story, it was not Pamela Ronald who initiated public discussion of the credibility of her research.

… Ronald’s footnotes [in the explanation that accompanied the retraction of her second article⁶ admit two mislabelings, along with failures to establish and use replicable experimental conditions, and also minimally two failed complementation tests. Each mistake appears to have been compounded by a systemic failure to use basic experimental controls.

Thus, leading up to the retractions were an assortment of practical errors, specific departures from standard scientific best practice, and lapses of judgment in failing to adequately question her labs’ unusual (and therefore newsworthy) results.”

The Snowball Effect of Retracted Studies

According to data from Thomson Reuters,⁷ the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001. What many don’t realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists who have based their research on the results from studies that, for whatever reason, end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In one example, two retracted medical studies led to the retraction of another 17.

In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.⁸ The second? 113 times.⁹ That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.

The Problem with GMO Plant Science

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance). This is in stark contrast to vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

Horizontal gene transfer, on the other hand, involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of genetically engineered crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of genetically modified food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

The kind of horizontal gene transfer that is currently used to create new crop seeds tends to produce highly inflammatory foreign proteins. As one would expect, were there a connection, inflammation-based chronic diseases have indeed increased right alongside with the proliferation of GMO foods in the US. Clearly, Dr. Ronald never bothered to look at such data, and her declaration that “GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment”¹⁰ is as lacking in scientific support as her retracted research.

Results from Animal-Feeding Studies Correlate with Human Disease Patterns

According to Jeffrey Smith, who is one of the leaders in educating people about the concerns and dangers of GMOs, there are definitive correlations between the results from animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has done a number of animal-feeding studies on GMOs and specifically enumerated the particular categories of diseases and disorders found in these controlled environments. These include:

Gastrointestinal problems Immune problems Reproductive problems

Organ damage Dysfunction and dysregulation of cholesterol Dysfunction and dysregulation of insulin

“You look at the three different corresponding factors: (1) what humans are getting better from, (2) what livestock is getting better from, (3) what afflictions are afflicting the lab animals fed with GMOs, and then you look at what diseases are really taking off in the United States – they’re the same categories,” Smith says.

For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 different animal-feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case. According to Smith:

“We heard from two people at a meeting in Arizona, someone whose husband was nearly on dialysis and someone else who had three kidney transplants – both situations reversed when they changed their diet. You see things like the animal-feeding study out of Russia where the babies were a lot smaller after being fed GE soy, and you see the incidence of low-birth-weight babies is going up in the United States… Deaths from senile dementia moved along at a certain pace, and then when GMOs or Roundup were introduced, it shot up… So, you see these correlations between these four things now: (1) the animal-feeding studies, (2) people getting better [when removing GMO], (3) livestock getting better [when removing GMO], and (4) changes in the disease rates.”

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, genetically engineered foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:

Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.

The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.

Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.

There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

from: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx?e_cid=20140311Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452684942

TIme to GO Organic

Posted on September 24, 2013 by marcia

Yet Another Reason to go Organic – Research Verifies it Really is More Nutritious

24th September 2013

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

While it’s generally agreed in the natural health arena that organically produced fare is superior in safety compared to crops that utilize GMOs or chemical pesticides, the fact that it’s more nutritious might be overlooked by consumers. Conventional growers insist there isn’t a substantial difference between the two, yet several studies have found otherwise.

The science behind nutrient rich organic edibles

In the battle between conventional versus organic, research has shown the latter to be the victor with higher levels of vitamins and minerals as well as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fats.

Nutritional profile of organic compared to conventional crops

After reviewing 41 published studies examining the nutritional content of conventional and organically grown crops, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington discovered organic food rated significantly higher. Findings include greater levels of vitamin C (27 percent), iron (21.1 percent), magnesium (29.3 percent) and phosphorus (13.6 percent). She also notes that organic crops had lower nitrates and heavy metal contamination. Worthington’s results can be found in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

Likewise, a study led by Alyson Mitchell at the University of California-Davis found free radical scavenging flavonoids were notably higher in organic tomatoes. Over the course of ten years, organically produced tomatoes were compared to their conventional counterpart. The organic fruit was shown to contain between 79 and 97 percent more flavonoid, aglycones, quercetin and kaempferol than conventionally grown tomatoes.

Variance in milk fatty acids between organic and conventional farming practices

A study in the Journal of Dairy Research investigated the chemical composition of milk sourced from conventional and organic dairy sheep and goats in Greece. One hundred and sixty two milk samples were taken over three months. Results showed fat content was lower in the organic milk compared to conventional. Additionally, the researchers discovered:

Milk from organic sheep had higher content in MUFA, PUFA, alpha-LNA, cis-9, trans-11 CLA, and omega-3 FA, whereas in milk from organic goats alpha-LNA and omega-3 FA content was higher than that in conventional one. These differences are, mainly, attributed to different feeding practices used by the two production systems.

According to the study, organic milk has a greater nutritional value (due to its fatty acid profile) compared to conventional milk when “produced under the farming conditions practiced in Greece.”

Similar results were found with cow’s milk. A team of researchers at the Institute of Food Science and Nutrition in Piacenza, Italy evaluated the fat composition of organic bulk milk as well as conventional. Once again, organically produced milk had higher levels of CLA. “The animal diet appears to be the factor which has the highest effect on the CLA concentration in milk and milk products and an organic diet based on fresh or dried forage, that is rich in CLA precursory fatty acids, may improve the yield of fatty acids with beneficial effects on health.”

from: http://wakeup-world.com/2013/09/24/yet-another-reason-to-go-organic-research-verifies-it-really-is-more-nutritious/

Dangers of GM Food

Posted on June 2, 2013 by marcia

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

By Dr. Mercola

Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.

But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals – research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns

Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”

Vrain writes:¹

“There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”

“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a Misunderstanding”

This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors — namely, “factors beyond the control of the gene” – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.

According to Vrain:

“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”

In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.

Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer

GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety

Vrain cites the compelling report “GMO Myths and Truths”² as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true.

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.

Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:³

“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on GM Foods FOUR Years Ago

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:

Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.

The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.

Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.

There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …

“One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.”

Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer … and why, then, should you? All in all, if GM foods have something wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain continued:

“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

… We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies … Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.”

At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.

from: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/28/gmo-dangers.aspx?e_cid=20130602_SNL_MS_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ms1&utm_campaign=20130602

Supermarket Tactics to Get You to Buy

Posted on March 24, 2012 by marcia

by Melanie Greenberg, Ph.D.

Ten Ways Your Local Grocery Store Hijacks Your Brain

Be a Savvy Consumer & Avoid Retail Traps

Published on March 14, 2012 by Melanie A. Greenberg, Ph.D. in The Mindful Self-Express

“Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or break them in the market place.” David Ogilvy

What’s in a brand name? Well, it turns out, a whole heck of a lot. Did you know that people rate the identical beverage as tastier when it’s in a “Coke” can than in a “Pepsi” can? This, and other juicy “behind the scenes” tidbits of information, are now being revealed to the public in books appropriately titled “Buyology” or marketing guru Martin Lindstrom’s latest bestseller “Brandwashed.”Below are 10 great examples of how consumers get baffled by branding into parting with their hard-earned

t(1) Fooled by Fresh Flowers

Do you notice that upscale supermarkets, such as Whole Foods, place fresh flowers right next to the store entrances. This creates an image of “fresh from the farm” delectability that sets the tone for the consumer’s shopping experience. Would the shopping experience start on such a good note if cans of Spam, dog food, toilet cleaner, and dusty old light bulbs were the first things you saw? Hmmmm…

(2) Crazed by Counterfeit Crates

Notice those stacked cardboard boxes filled with fresh apples and oranges? Well, if you look closer, it turns out that in Whole Foods, all those boxes are actually part of one giant box with partitions. This is deliberately done to create the image of workers piling the crates of freshly picked fruit on top of one another. However, according to Lindstrom, store bought apples can be as much as 14 months old. Eeek!

(3) Baffled by Bananas

Surely, the bananas are just bananas, right? Uh… no! Lindstrom writes in a 2011 Fast Company blog post:

Dole and other banana growers have turned the creation of a banana into a science, in part to manipulate perceptions of freshness. In fact, they’ve issued a banana guide to greengrocers, illustrating the various color stages a banana can attain during its life cycle. Each color represents the sales potential for the banana in question. For example, sales records show that bananas with Pantone color 13-0858 (otherwise known as Vibrant Yellow) are less likely to sell than bananas with Pantone color 12-0752 (also called Buttercup), which is one grade warmer, visually, and seems to imply a riper, fresher fruit. Companies like Dole have analyzed the sales effects of all varieties of color and, as a result, plant their crops under conditions most ideal to creating the right ‘color.’

(4) Muddled by Missing Milk

As you search for the milk and eggs that most people make a quick stop for, did you notice they are at the back of the store. This, also, is no accident. Having to walk down the aisles to get to your basics makes it more likely you’ll pick up some delectable, yet expensive impulse buy, placed precisely at eye level, along the way.

(5) Exasperated by Expiration Dates

Speaking of the milk and eggs, did you notice that the milk has expiration dates, as do some bottled waters and many other purchases, such as, perhaps, cola, or toothpaste. Bet you think that some official governmentbody is looking after your interests by ensuring optimal freshness. Wrong! . Actually, some of these products don’t actually expire, or expire long after the date noted. If the milk in your fridge isn’t all rancid and lumpy and smells fresh, it’s probably fine to drink. Stores often add these dates to have you throw out the products and replace them more often, leading to more sales & predictable time periods for re-ordering.

(6) Dedazzled by Bottled Waters

Now, about those bottled waters… did you know that in most areas, tap water is perfectly safe to drink. In fact, some bottled waters actually are tap water, with filtering or some other ingredients to make them taste a bit better. Others are gathered from the same reservoirs that your tap water comes from. There is no protective regulation ensuring bottled water has to come from some melted arctic glacier, despite the blue labels and glacial pictures. In some cases, bottled waters, such as Dasani, can actually be dehydrating, rather than thirst-quenching, due to the high salt content. Now that stinks!

(7) Oggling Oodles of Organics

Moving right along, how about those green products we pay the extra bucks for? A few years ago, brands, such as Method hand soaps, were making a killing, but now the regular brands have gottenwise and are rolling out organic and green versions. You will see some spurious advertising, such as, “Now much greener, we use 20% less plastic in our bottles;” that should remove the guilt at buying a product destined for the landfill, huh? The term “organic” is also sometimes used when it shouldn’t be, such as the case of the farm with fat, happy chickens grazing the land; only they bought the stuff they sold to the stores for top dollar from the overcrowded, dark chicken coop down the road. Of course, not all organic products represent fraudulent advertising, and, if you care about how animals are treated, terms such as “grass-fed” or “free-range” can denote more humane practices, resulting in healthier, tastier food.

(8) Exasperated by Faux Environmentalists

Actually the green washing and cleaning products are better for the environment, but here consumers are the shady ones. Research shows many people buy the “greener” products, not to save the environment, but to keep up with the bicycling, composting Prius owners next door (I do live in Marin county, California, you know!). There seems to be status in showing how altruistic you are, especially if you pay a higher price to help the environment—a phenomenon known as “competitive altruism.” Some lab research shows if the buying decision is kept completely private or the price is the same, people make less “green” choices. This is probably due to the status aspect. “Well, bring on the social pressure,” is my motto!

(9) Tracked by Techno-Geeks

Finally, marketers are getting all the more surreptitious and Machiavellian (in some opinions) in how they collect data on us unwitting consumers. Google just recently changed their privacy practices to make “opting in” to being tracked the default option, so that Adwords can pop up the words most likely to generate clicks. Same with those supermarket cards tracking every purchase. No wonder they offer such big card-only discounts.

(10) Nailed by Neuromarketers

The new (and “hot”) science of neuro-marketing, uses fancy brain-scanning technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to look at what brain areas light up at different stages of the purchasing process. In one study, experimenters could predict buying choices, 7 seconds before consumers knew what they were going to buy. As Velma from Scooby Doo once said, “Jinkies!”

While these examples provide a source of anecdote and amusement, they really do give new meaning to the Latin phrase “Caveat Emptor,” or “Let the Buyer Beware.” So, next time you’re at the grocery store, skirt the perimeter, look on the top shelves, bring a list, and don’t get too seduced by the pastoral green fields on the food labels. If you want ‘fresh from the farm,” visit your local Farmer’s Market instead.

for more information, go to: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201203/ten-ways-your-local-grocery-store-hijacks-your-brain