Every five years, we have the chance to influence the way our food is produced, our land is conserved, and our health is protected. The legislation that addresses these issues is known as the Farm Bill, and in 2012, it’s up for renewal. “It isn’t really a bill just for farmers,” says food journalist Michael Pollan, in this video from Nourish Short Films. “It really should be called the food bill because it is the rules for the food system we all eat by.”

A must-pass funding bill may include dangerous genetic engineering provisions. Action Alert!

The Budget Control Act of 2011 goes into affect at midnight on December 31. That is the bill already passed that raises taxes and cuts the budget. Congress does not like this scenario, so it is working on an omnibus 2013 Appropriations Bill that will address tax and spending cuts before January 1.

Even though no bill has yet been introduced, if Congress and President Obama reach agreement, the bill will be rushed through. Unfortunately, we have received word from sources on Capitol Hill that the GMO bills that previously were attached to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill and the Farm Bill could be part of this package. And because it’s a must-pass funding package, any GMO rider that is included will likely become law.

These are the same GMO riders we told you about last July. Section 733 of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill (the so-called “Farmer Assurance Provision,” though one might just as well call it the “Monsanto Protection Act”) would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale or planting of illegal, potentially hazardous GMO crops—even if a court has told them to stop—while USDA is still assessing potential hazards. The Secretary of Agriculture must, under this provision, grant any farm operator or producer upon request a temporary permit allowing GMO crops to be planted or cultivated, even if a court has called a halt to it until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed.

Time magazine just posted an op-ed piece in which Dr. Oz states that organic food “is not very democratic,” is the food of the 1%, that frozen conventional vegetables and feedlot beef is no more nutritious than fresh, organic produce and grass-fed meats.

WTF DR OZ?

I should mention the Stanford studies which concluded no nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, and then I’ll say this:

1) Organic produce will always be healthier regardless of nutritional content because of the lack of pesticides and other chemicals used in conventional farming.
Here’s an article from Dr. Oz’s website explaining just that:
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/why-going-organic-matters-your-family

2) Nutritional content of produce depends entirely on the health of the soil it’s growing in. We focus on growing MORE produce on LESS land, which considerably lowers the nutritional content of produce across the board. We need to be focused on growing our food in organic and biodynamic ways (methods that promote health of the ecosystem, health of the soil and soil fertility).

Here’s some resources on biodynamics:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5339
https://www.biodynamics.com/biodynamics

Also, here’s an article from the NY Times outlining the nutritional differences between grass-fed and feedlot beef:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/organic-food-vs-conventional-food/
And another one regarding finishing diets of beef cows:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/monday-musings-new-grass-fed-study/#axzz2DpeIKQL7

(I posted this link instead of the link to the original article because Time doesn’t show the full article without a subscription and this article has more quotes from the original article.)

Just in case you missed this insane saga—James Stewart was just released from jail recently.

“It’s important to keep the big picture in mind, and in the big picture, the government is able to assemble a mammoth array of forces to frustrate, intimidate, obfuscate, delay, torture, and otherwise assert its will. The U.S. government is no different than any other government in this respect. The more threatened its rulers feel, the more tools they will bring to bear to beat back the threat, and in the Rawesome case, they have assembled a formidable array of tools via numerous federal, state, county, and local agencies, headed up by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “
(via http://tinyurl.com/d7neu6w)

How is it that the NCI and ACS have failed to inform the public about scientific information on avoidable causes of cancer from carcinogenic ingredients and contaminants in consumer products, food, cosmetics and personal care products, and household products?  Also, how is it that the NCI and ACS have also failed to inform regulatory agencies and Congress so that they can legislate against these avoidable cancer risks?

Which organic brands really believe in organic—and which are working behind the scenes to betray natural health consumers?

Many natural and organic brands are actually owned by huge conglomerates that don’t support sustainable, organic, non-GMO, non-toxic agriculture. In fact, their product labels are often designed to mislead consumers just so they can grab a share of the lucrative health-conscious consumer market.

Even worse, many of the conglomerate companies that produce so-called natural foods—and even some labeled “organic”—are allied with the biotech industry fighting by any means to defeat “Label GMO,” a.k.a. Prop 37, the California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative. Why are they doing such a thing? Because they sell more food that has GMO ingredients than organic food, and don’t want consumers to have a choice about the GMO. They especially don’t want consumers to know what is actually in their so-called “natural” products.

Here is a poster showing which companies donated (and how much) to each side of Prop37.

Good thing corporations have the right to financially support whatever causes they deem worthy.

It is already well known that the general public is highly supportive of GMO labeling in general, with many polls finding that around 93% of the population is supportive of knowing what is in their food. Monsanto obviously does not care much about the general public, however, as exemplified by the company’s utter lack of concern over public health and baseline human rights.

Back in April following the announcement of a bill centered in Vermont known as the ‘VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act’ that would require the labeling of genetically modified ingredients, Monsanto threatened to sue the entire state in order to prevent its passing. As a result, the bill went on hold despite a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members actually supporting the passage of the bill. Officials actually refused to take a vote. It sounds like mafia-styled intimidation, but it is actually just business as usual.