July 28, 2014

Pro-GMO Propaganda in California Dismantled by New Cost Study

pin it button Pro GMO Propaganda in California Dismantled by New Cost Study

gmo labeling 1 300x262 Pro GMO Propaganda in California Dismantled by New Cost Study

by Alliance for Natural Health

Opponents of GMO labeling say it will raise food costs by hundreds of dollars per family when in fact it will likely cause NO cost increase at all!

The California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative, which will be voted upon in November, will tell Californians—and ultimately perhaps other Americans—whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients. Not surprisingly, the biotech companies are up in arms over the proposal. Their website is NoProp37.com, funding for which comes in part from the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow, and other GMO companies. The site, which used to be called StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com (they just recently changed the domain name—could it be because they realized it wasn’t costly after all?) says:

[Labeling genetically engineered foods] would increase food costs paid by California consumers. The higher costs that farmers, food companies and grocers would face because of this proposition would be passed on to California consumers through higher food prices. That would hurt all California families—especially those who can least afford it, such as seniors on fixed incomes and low income families. An economic analysis of a similar measure that was rejected by Oregon voters found that the type of labeling regulations in the California proposition could cost an average family hundreds of dollars per year in higher food costs.

Note that they analyzed a rejected Oregon proposal, not the proposal on which Californians will be voting in November! But Joanna Shepherd-Bailey, PhD, has analyzed the one in California.

She’s the renowned tenured law professor from Emory who has testified before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and before the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academy of Sciences. Her analysis reveals—in direct contradiction to the propaganda being put forth by the biotech companies—that GMO labeling will likely cause no increase in consumer costs at all!

In fact, her report refutes the two key fear-mongering arguments being put forth by opponents of GMO labeling.

Kathy Fairbanks, the spokeswoman for the Coalition against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, claims that GMO labeling will increase the cost of food by hundreds of dollars per California family because food producers and grocery store owner will have to re-label food and put up placardsBut Shepherd-Bailey found that the one-time average per-product cost to manufacturers of redesigning all food labels is $1,104, which represents only 0.03% of annual per product sales, and that the one-time average per-store cost of placards disclosing genetic engineering will be $2,820, or about 0.1% of the annual sales in the average supermarket.

Because the increase in cost-per-item of goods is so small, it is most likely that this increase will not be passed on to the consumer at all. According to extensive survey research, a primary reason firms don’t change prices in response to many cost changes is because of the fear of losing customers. Even if relabeling expenses were substantial enough to justify the cost of re-pricing, many suppliers will simply refrain from changing prices from fear of losing customers to other products that have not increased prices.

Besides, manufacturers change their labeling all the time—anytime their product is “new and improved” or they change a logo or a box design—and those costs are not passed on to the consumer. When the government required nutritional information to be posted on each container, prices didn’t go up because of it. It would actually cost companies more internally to raise prices than for them to simply absorb the costs. And with an eighteen-month lead time, it may not cost many companies anything at all.

In a worst-case scenario, even if all of these costs were passed on to consumers, this translates to a mere $1.27 one-time increase in the total annual food expenditure for the average household in California. And this is an overestimate, since not all products will require GE labeling.

In other words, these specious allegations about rising food costs is just the latest attack from the anti-labeling camp—those who don’t want you to know what you’re eating. Several weeks ago we told you about their specious charge that Label GMO will become a Prop 65 type “right to sue” law—that it would “create…frivolous and costly lawsuits” and would lead to abusive “bounty hunter”–style lawsuits that allow plaintiffs to keep a “bounty” of 25% of civil penalties collected—when in fact the initiative does not include the controversial bounty fees found in other California laws, and their entire campaign is based on disinformation. They are entitled to their own opinions, of course—just not their own facts.

Since the law would be enforced through litigation, opponents also claim that GMO labeling will impose high costs on the state of California as a result of an increase in litigation. Shepherd-Bailey shows that this is also false. She estimates that the cost to the state will be negligible: the annual costs for processing and hearing cases should be less than $50,000. And while there will be administrative costs to the state as its Department of Health begins to implement certain provisions of the law, her analysis found that these administrative costs will be less than $1 million—that is, less than 1 cent for each person living in the state of California—causing the department’s expenditures to increase by no more than 0.03% and total state expenditures to increase by just 0.0008%. That one cent is all it will cost for critical health information to be made available to the many consumers who want to know what is in the food they feed their families.

If you are a California resident, please consider being part of the campaign to educate your fellow Californians and get them to vote on November 6! Over 90% of Californians want their foods labeled—but it will never happen if citizens don’t understand the issues and get to the polls. Volunteer. Donate. Join a local group. And get the word out!

Being able to see which foods contain genetically engineered ingredients is particularly important when you see how dangerous GE crops can be. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops have been genetically engineered to permit direct application of the Monsanto herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds—and any other green thing the herbicide touches—without killing the crops.

According to a recent animal study published in the journal Toxicology in Vitro, glyphosate, which is frequently present residually in GMO foods, can affect men’s testosterone and sperm counts. It is toxic to testicle cells, can even kill them, and significantly lowers testosterone synthesis. As Jonathan V. Wright, MD, in the July 2012 issue of his Nutrition & Healing newsletter, points out, synthetic herbicides and pesticides are essentially “environmental estrogens” in humans, as these molecules mimic estrogen activity. GMO agriculture has exacerbated this situation.

There are many, many more health issues with GMO foods, as you can read about in our earlier articles.

Read the full article here: http://www.anh-usa.org/pro-gmo-propaganda-in-california-dismantled-by-new-cost-study/

 


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Factory Farmed Chicken May Be Cheap, But the Ultimate Price You Pay Is High

Factory Farmed Chicken May Be Cheap, But the Ultimate Price You Pay Is High

Demand for food at cheaper prices has dramatically altered the entire food chain. Today, food production revolves around efficiency—the ability to produce more for less.

Today, nearly 65 billion animals worldwide, including cows, chickens, and pigs, are crammed into confined animal feeding operations known as CAFOs. These animals are imprisoned and tortured in crowded, unhealthy, unsanitary, and cruel conditions.

Seeing how chicken is supposed to be a healthy source of high-quality nutrition, the fact that it has become so affordable might seem to be a great benefit. But there’s a major flaw in this equation. As it turns out, it’s virtually impossible to mass-produce clean, safe, optimally nutritious foods at rock bottom prices.

To prevent the inevitable spread of disease from stress, overcrowding, and an unnatural diet, the animals are routinely fed antibiotics. Antibiotics used in livestock pose a direct threat to human health, and contaminate the environment.

Glyphosate Herbicide Causes Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Kidney Disease, and Infertility

Glyphosate Herbicide Causes Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Kidney Disease, and Infertility

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden issued an alarming warning this week: “Antibiotic resistance that turns ordinary disease-causing bacteria into illnesses that can’t be controlled could bring about the next pandemic.” Frieden brought attention to the growing trend of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which can cause patients to “enter the hospital with one disease and leave with another.”

It is generally acknowledged today that the age of antibiotics is over, as bacteria have adapted to resist man-made pharmaceutical products. The focus now is on the microbiome, both the human microbiome as well as other microbiome systems within our environment, as we enter into a new age of dangerous organisms totally out of control.

How did we get to this point where modern medicines can no longer stop infections? Many analyses correctly point to the fact that we have overused man-made antibiotic drugs, both in medicine and in livestock raised in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

However, as we report to you today, there is probably a far greater reason the human microbiome has been damaged and in many people destroyed, leading to a multitude of allergies and diseases that plague this modern generation. That reason is linked to a common herbicide currently present in 80% of the U.S. food chain: glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides.

Glyphosate may well be the most toxic chemical ever approved for commercial use, as it is now linked to kidney disease, antibiotic resistant bacteria, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations. It destroys the microbiome of humans and plants, which is the root cause of many modern diseases.

Michigan Officials Destroy $5,000.00 of Good Organic Food from Family Farm

Michigan Officials Destroy $5,000.00 of Good Organic Food from Family Farm

The government-sponsored dump of nearly $5,000 of milk, eggs, butter, and cream from Michigan’s My Family Co-Op yesterday (July 21, 2014) carried a very clear and powerful political message to all Americans: We control your food and we don’t like you buying your food outside the corporate food system. Every now and then, we are going to remind you of what bad children you are being by taking your food and throwing it in the garbage. In fact, we are going to do more than remind you, we are going to completely humiliate you by preventing you from even feeding it to farm animals and instead forcing it to be disposed of in a landfill or dumpster.

If you think I am exaggerating the intent of what is going on here, ask yourself this question: When was the last time you saw government agents seize and condemn food from a place like Foster Farms or Taco Bell or Del Monte or Kellogg’s or Trade Joe’s when their food has been found to contain pathogens, or made people sick? There’s been not even a suggestion that food at My Family Co-Op contained pathogens or made anyone sick.

Michigan Officials Seize Private Food from Family Co-op

Michigan Officials Seize Private Food from Family Co-op

David Gumpert is reporting that agents from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development pulled over the My Family Co-op’s refrigerated truck this week, and placed a seizure order on their private food which was being delivered to food club members. My Family Co-op operates a “herd-share” program that allows private club members to contract with them and share in the ownership of their farm operations to produce and deliver farm-fresh food.

These types of private food clubs are popping up all over the country, bypassing the commercial retail distribution of commodity food found in grocery stores. Big Ag, Big Dairy, and others are obviously opposed to such systems that allow farmers to sell directly to consumers, and use government regulations to go after peaceful farm operations trying to produce healthy food for those who want to bypass the commodity processed food market.

David Gumpert, however, brings up a good point in explaining that most ag inspectors that try to seize private food really have no police powers, and can be resisted. Some food clubs have successfully resisted some seizures, forcing government officials to get court sanctioned orders that can be enforced by law enforcement officials. They key is to know your rights and not be intimidated, and David Gumpert posted on his blog:

SIX WAYS TO PUT A STOP TO GOVERNMENT SEIZURES OF PRIVATELY-OWNED FOOD

Genetically “Tweaked” Chickens Suffer from Lack of Fertility: Is the End of Commercial Poultry Near?

Genetically “Tweaked” Chickens Suffer from Lack of Fertility: Is the End of Commercial Poultry Near?

A Reuter’s story this week is reporting that the world’s largest chicken breeder is suffering from rooster infertility due to genetic manipulation. The popular Ross male breed of roosters is used to produce as much as 25 percent of the nation’s chickens raised for meat (broilers). As a result, chicken production is down, and prices will continue to rise.

So what are these “genetic manipulations” causing these problems? There is supposedly no GMO chicken in the market, but chicken genome has been mapped since 2004. Has the public actually been eating GMO chicken for some time now? What is the future of the commercial poultry industry and their factory birds?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!