Thank you for educating on all of the family farms that supply companies like Organic Valley. Monsanto is huge, we must band together, people act like this just started, it has been going on for a very long time.
Support small farms, local natural foods markets, buy organic seeds...remember everytime you buy a product that is not "clean" you are voting and giving YOUR power away! The real problem, our government caving to monsanto!
I was with you on the stations (television, radio, internet) set aside. In the U.K. campaign commercials are not permitted. A centralized source of information for all candidates should address broadcast communications. I also think those sources should include real time fact-checking and there should be consequences for lying about your opponent or seriously misrepresenting yourself whether by broadcast, speeches or mailings including those done on your behalf by 3rd parties advocates. If you are going to gain from their misrepresentations you should also pay for abuses committed by them. They shouldn't provide convenient political cover. There should also be a fund for thorough background checks. AND severe limitations on all contributions including any 3rd party groups that involve themselves in campaigns. And absolute transparency donor and financial is paramount - no cheating and laundering. But I think all NPOs and publicly traded companies should be absolutely transparent anyway.
But, five generations is ridiculous. As if there aren't corrupt Americans who can trace their ancestry to colonial times. I don't want to eliminate wonderful potential candidates because their maternal grandmother is from Italy. Give me a break.
But, another issue that must be addressed is fixing the SCOTUS decision that says Money = Speech once again favoring the moneyed.
Adding natural "biological" person or human being should do the trick. And I agree that lobbying should be addressed concurrently. As well as conflicts of interest that would required recusal.
I was with you on the stations (television, radio, internet) set aside. In the U.K. campaign commercials are not permitted. A centralized source of information for all candidates should address broadcast communications. I also think those sources should include real time fact-checking and there should be consequences for lying about your opponent or seriously misrepresenting yourself whether by broadcast, speeches or mailings including those done on your behalf by 3rd parties advocates. If you are going to gain from their misrepresentations you should also pay for abuses committed by them. They shouldn't provide convenient political cover. There should also be a fund for thorough background checks. AND severe limitations on all contributions including any 3rd party groups that involve themselves in campaigns. And absolute transparency donor and financial is paramount _ no cheating and laundering. But I think all NPOs and publicly traded companies should be absolutely transparent anyway.
But, five generations is ridiculous. As if there aren't corrupt Americans who can trace their ancestry to colonial times. I don't want to eliminate wonderful potential candidates because their maternal grandmother is from Italy. Give me a break.
But, another issue that must be addressed is fixing the SCOTUS decision that says Money = Speech once again favoring the moneyed.
Adding natural "biological" person or human being should do the trick. And I agree that lobbying should be addressed concurrently. As well as conflicts of interest that would required recusal.
Monsanto is the next tobacco industry. The bigger problem is that we will probably never see the day of their reckoning because the politicians and FED regulators are in bed with them. When it comes out they will distract us with another bubble burst or war.
I don't think Anne's short report on the controversy over the role of some of the corporate groups in the new GMO rule was "irresponsible...."
WFM concedes that it "endorsed the coexistence option rather than an outright ban on GE alfalfa" and rationalizes that by saying that "The USDA presented the industry with only two options that they were considering– deregulation and deregulation with restrictions . . . – the option of an outright ban was not on the table."
But, imagine if they stood firm for the ban and put the money and time spent having a seat at the table with USDA on turning up the heat on the Obama Administration in favor of a ban. Imagine if they had fully rallied their customers and their farmers and others to stand united against a ban rather than accepting the two options Monsanto put the captured USDA up to. Had there been enormous push back, it is likely that the USDA may still have gone with deregulation with restrictions and perhaps even more restrictions and not had the political space to even say that full deregulation was an option.
What I think is outrageous is for corporations like WFM and Stonyfield to suggest that it's not appropriate for activists to criticize them, to suggest that those opposed to GMO food are not realistic and just don't understand what it's like to have a seat at the table with USDA. And, then to hide behind the skirts, so to speak, of the farmers on the front lines who are working to provide people with GMO-free organic products while the corporate heads are rubbing elbows with their friends at the USDA, who have sold out again is really something to behold.
PRW is committed to investigating PR campaigns and spin by corporations, industries, and government agencies, and I stand fully behind Anne's story on this topic. The industry capture of the federal agency on this subject and the corporate capitulation by green marketers and the spin that full deregulation versus partial deregulation were the only options the corporate "stakeholders" were allowed to consider was worthy of our attention and critique. The companies chose to accept that those were the only options rather than eschew them and join the broader organic community is standing firm that this was not negotiable. They made a choice. It was the wrong choice. And, it gives cover to the USDA's service of Monsanto's agenda.
I understand that I wasn't in the room. And, having been in the room on a variety of issues in DC I understand the allure and the rationales on compromise. But, sometimes you just have to say no, we will not go along with this and get a slice of bread or a crumb. And, this was one of those times. Partial deregulation and compensation will not protect the crops, the farmers or the people, at the end of the day. And, everyone who has been following this closely knows it. Full dereg would not either of course. And, at the end of the day, another GMO product will spread.
Thank you for educating on all of the family farms that supply companies like Organic Valley. Monsanto is huge, we must band together, people act like this just started, it has been going on for a very long time.
Support small farms, local natural foods markets, buy organic seeds...remember everytime you buy a product that is not "clean" you are voting and giving YOUR power away! The real problem, our government caving to monsanto!
Monsanto is the next tobacco industry. The bigger problem is that we will probably never see the day of their reckoning because the politicians and FED regulators are in bed with them. When it comes out they will distract us with another bubble burst or war.
Dear cc:
I don't think Anne's short report on the controversy over the role of some of the corporate groups in the new GMO rule was "irresponsible...."
WFM concedes that it "endorsed the coexistence option rather than an outright ban on GE alfalfa" and rationalizes that by saying that "The USDA presented the industry with only two options that they were considering– deregulation and deregulation with restrictions . . . – the option of an outright ban was not on the table."
But, imagine if they stood firm for the ban and put the money and time spent having a seat at the table with USDA on turning up the heat on the Obama Administration in favor of a ban. Imagine if they had fully rallied their customers and their farmers and others to stand united against a ban rather than accepting the two options Monsanto put the captured USDA up to. Had there been enormous push back, it is likely that the USDA may still have gone with deregulation with restrictions and perhaps even more restrictions and not had the political space to even say that full deregulation was an option.
What I think is outrageous is for corporations like WFM and Stonyfield to suggest that it's not appropriate for activists to criticize them, to suggest that those opposed to GMO food are not realistic and just don't understand what it's like to have a seat at the table with USDA. And, then to hide behind the skirts, so to speak, of the farmers on the front lines who are working to provide people with GMO-free organic products while the corporate heads are rubbing elbows with their friends at the USDA, who have sold out again is really something to behold.
PRW is committed to investigating PR campaigns and spin by corporations, industries, and government agencies, and I stand fully behind Anne's story on this topic. The industry capture of the federal agency on this subject and the corporate capitulation by green marketers and the spin that full deregulation versus partial deregulation were the only options the corporate "stakeholders" were allowed to consider was worthy of our attention and critique. The companies chose to accept that those were the only options rather than eschew them and join the broader organic community is standing firm that this was not negotiable. They made a choice. It was the wrong choice. And, it gives cover to the USDA's service of Monsanto's agenda.
I understand that I wasn't in the room. And, having been in the room on a variety of issues in DC I understand the allure and the rationales on compromise. But, sometimes you just have to say no, we will not go along with this and get a slice of bread or a crumb. And, this was one of those times. Partial deregulation and compensation will not protect the crops, the farmers or the people, at the end of the day. And, everyone who has been following this closely knows it. Full dereg would not either of course. And, at the end of the day, another GMO product will spread.
Lisa Graves
Pages