http://ga3.org/cfs/home.html Center for Food SafetyAdvocacy Channel Center for Food Safety &#169 Center for Food Safety http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS2 <P><STRONG><IMG hspace=3 src="http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/cfs/seeds_icon.jpg" align=left vspace=3 border=0>USDA has released for public comment its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on Monsanto&rsquo;s genetically engineered, Roudup Ready alfalfa, and unfortunately, USDA has not done its job. </STRONG>USDA has ignored the real-life concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, dairies, exporters, retailers&nbsp;and consumers. <U>Despite public outcry, USDA&rsquo;s determination is to once again approve GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections</U> for consumers, the environment, or farmers&rsquo; right to sow the crop of their choice without fear of contamination and rejection of their products. <U>Incredibly, USDA claims that consumers don&rsquo;t care if organic and conventional farmers&rsquo; crops are contaminated!</U></P> <P>In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of farmers and others for its illegal approval of Monsanto&rsquo;s Roundup Ready alfalfa <EM>and won</EM>, banning GE alfalfa until the USDA <EM>fully analyzed its impacts on the environment, farmers, and the public</EM>. However, the resulting&nbsp;EIS is woefully inadequate, leaving farmers and consumers unprotected while Monsanto goes on with business as usual.</P> <P><U>This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for <EM>any GE crop</EM>, so the final decision will have broad implications for <EM>all GE crops</EM> and for the future of organic agriculture&mdash;that is why it&rsquo;s so important that USDA hear from YOU. <EM>USDA is only accepting comments on this EIS through February 16, 2010, so please take action today!</EM></U></P> <P><STRONG>Tell USDA that protecting farmers and consumers is its job and demand they reject approval of Monsanto&rsquo;s GE alfalfa!</STRONG></P> alert 2010-01-28 2010-02-15 http://img.getactivehub.comnull Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044 Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044 Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 USDA's basic mission is "protecting American agriculture." Yet in the draft EIS (APHIS-2007-0044) USDA refused to even consider any options that might protect organic and conventional agriculture from contamination and the resulting loss of markets and ability to sow the crop of their choice. USDA analyzed only two options in the EIS: 1) Full approval, allowing GE alfalfa to be grown and sold without restriction like any other crop; and 2) No action, meaning GE alfalfa could only be grown under USDA permit, as at present. USDA's "all or nothing" approach leaves un-analyzed any potential options to protect farmers. This is contrary to law and logic. USDA should protect all farmers, not just those growing Monsanto's patented crops. Additionally, USDA acknowledges that GE alfalfa may contaminate organic and conventional alfalfa, but claims that Monsanto's seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent such contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring the EIS, the Court found that GE contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place. In fact, contamination of organic and conventional seeds and crops is widespread and has been documented around the world. A recent report documented 39 cases in 2007 and more than 200 in the last decade. The harms incurred by farmers and food companies from GE contamination are many and include: lost markets, lost sales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification, expensive testing and prevention measures, and product recalls. Looking to Monsanto to protect farmers from contamination by their own product is a complete abdication of USDA's duties, akin to leaving the fox to guard the hen house. Finally, USDA concludes that GE alfalfa will cause production to shift to larger farms but that these economic shifts are "not significant." Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. According to Farm Aid, thousands of small, family farmers are under extreme economic pressure and are pushed off their land each year. The very existence of the family farm is at risk and a shift in production from small farms to larger farms in the nation's fourth-largest crop substantially increases that risk. Please protect farmers' and consumers' right to choose organic and non-GE crops and foods by rejecting the deregulation of Monsanto's GE alfalfa. http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS <P><IMG border=0 hspace=3 vspace=3 align=left src="http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/cfs/GE_icon.jpg">In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto&rsquo;s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa.&nbsp; The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). <STRONG>USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009.&nbsp; A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010.</STRONG>&nbsp; This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop.&nbsp; Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops. </P> <P>CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously.&nbsp; <STRONG>USDA&rsquo;s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment.</STRONG> Instead USDA has completely dismissed the fact that contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products.&nbsp; And, <STRONG>incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination of organic! </STRONG></P> <P>USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product, despite the fact that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.</P> <P>USDA claims that Monsanto&rsquo;s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states <STRONG>with these same business-as-usual practices in place!</STRONG> </P> <P>USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family farms and organic markets, yet doesn&rsquo;t even consider any limitations or protections against this scenario.&nbsp; Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.</P> <P><STRONG>Tell USDA That You DO Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and Food!</STRONG></P> alert 2010-01-14 2010-02-15 http://img.getactivehub.comnull Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044 Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044 Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 In USDA's Environmental Impact Statement (Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044) on genetically engineered alfalfa, USDA claims that there is no evidence that consumers care about contamination to organic alfalfa and alfalfa-derived foods from Monsanto's GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. As an organic consumer, I can tell you that I DO care. Prohibition of genetic engineering (GE) is a fundamental tenet of the Organic Standard. In fact, the organic rule's failure to exclude GE from its first version was one of the main reasons why 275,000 people like me filed public comments in 1997, at the time the largest outpouring of public participation in the history of U.S. administrative procedure. Consumers care deeply about organic integrity, and GE is fundamentally not organic. Polls show that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic. USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product. The Organic Standard requires that livestock feed for animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products is 100 percent organic. As the Court found in the lawsuit that required this EIS, to "farmers and consumers organic means not genetically engineered, even if the farmer did not intend for his crop to be so engineered." Whether or not the end product is impacted is not the issue. Farmers' fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public's ability to support meaningful organic food and feed production. Consumers like me will reject GE contamination of organic by any means or at any stage of sustainable food production. USDA claims that Monsanto's seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent GE contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. In the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place! In general, where other GE crops were approved without restriction, contamination of organic and conventional seeds and crops is widespread and has been documented around the world. A recent report documented 39 cases in 2007 and more than 200 in the last decade. The EIS itself acknowledges that GE contamination may happen and includes studies that honey bees can cross-pollinate at distances over 6 miles, and Alkali bees at 4-5 miles, much further than any distances under Monsanto's "best practices." As a consumer, I care about the contamination of organic foods and crops, and I expect USDA to do everything the agency can to protect organic farmers and consumers. The organic industry provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses. USDA must reject the deregulation of GE alfalfa and protect the integrity of organic. http://ga3.org/campaign/CloneTracking <P><IMG hspace=4 src="http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/cfs/not_milk_imageonly_no_FDA_text.jpg" align=left vspace=2 border=0>In poll after poll, the American public has said that it does not want to eat food that comes from cloned animals. A 2008 Food Marketing Institute poll indicated that 77% of Americans are not comfortable with eating foods from cloned animals.</P> <P><STRONG>But we won&rsquo;t have much choice about eating cloned foods unless USDA creates a robust system to track clones and their offspring. </STRONG></P> <P>Dozens of food companies have pledged to avoid cloned animals in their supply chains, and the National Organic Program has determined that cloned animals and their offspring cannot be certified organic. But these efforts may not be successful unless clones and their offspring can be reliably identified through a national tracking system. </P> <P>Tracking is also necessary for any kind of labeling about cloned foods. The radio frequency tagging system proposed by the cloning companies stops at the slaughterhouse door and only covers clones, not their offspring; that&rsquo;s not good enough.</P> <P><STRONG>Take Action Now! Tell Congress they must allow for real consumer choice by establishing a national DNA-based tracking system for cloned animals and their offspring. </STRONG></P> alert 2009-03-30 2010-05-29 http://img.getactivehub.comnull United States House of Representatives United States Senate I am writing to urge you to establish a DNA-based tracking system for cloned animals and their offspring. Cloning technology is still in its infancy. Many Americans object to animal cloning on moral or ethical grounds, and there is no market demand for cloned foods. But the public won't have any choice about whether or not to avoid cloned foods unless USDA creates a robust system to track cloned animals and their offspring. Without such a system, cloned animals will be invisible to food companies and will inevitably end up in the food supply. Several news stories have reported that some cloned animals and their progeny have already entered the food supply. Dozens of food companies have pledged to avoid cloned animals in their supply chains, and the National Organic Program has determined that cloned animals and their offspring cannot be certified organic. But these efforts may not be successful unless clones and their offspring can be reliably identified. And a tracking system for cloned animals is necessary for any kind of labeling. The radio frequency tagging system proposed by the cloning companies stops at the slaughterhouse door and only covers clones, not their offspring; that's not good enough. Even the National Academy of Sciences has cautioned the Federal Government to monitor cloned animals and called for diligent post-market surveillance, which is not possible without a mandatory tracking system. Cloning companies and breeders of cloned animals should be required to deposit samples of the DNA of clones and their offspring with the US Department of Agriculture, and I urge Congress to put such a tracking system in place. Thank you for taking my views into consideration. I look forward to your response. http://ga3.org/campaign/Registry <P align=center><IMG src="http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/cfs/vday_card_sm_copy.jpg" border=0></P> alert 2009-02-12 2010-06-15 http://img.getactivehub.comnull In 2001, Hershey's and M&M Mars told consumers they would not use genetically modified sugar. But now that GM sugar beets are being planted commercially, you have made no such assurances. As a customer, I am very disappointed. I have always looked to sugar as one of the few ingredients I could count on to be GM-free, unlike corn syrups and some other sweeteners. Without labeling of GM products, I have to rely on companies that have publicly stated that they will avoid GM sugar in order to make my purchasing decisions. For this Valentine's Day, show me the love by continuing the opposition you voiced in 2001, and do not accept genetically modified beet sugar for your products. Over 70 food companies and retailers have joined the new Non-GM Sugar Beet Registry which lets consumers like me know that they plan to avoid GM beet sugar, at http://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/no ngm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm. Please sign on to the Registry so I can continue to purchase your products with confidence. http://ga3.org/campaign/Label_GE_Food <P align=left><IMG hspace=10 src="http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/cfs/tell_us_label_GE_food.JPG" align=left border=0></P> <P align=left>Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)&nbsp;has repeatedly&nbsp;introduced two bills related to GE crops and foods in the House of Representatives. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act would require mandatory labeling of all GE foods; the other, The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act, would require mandatory, pre-market safety testing of GE foods. </P> <P align=left>We need you to contact your Representatives and encourage them to support these important bills!<BR>&nbsp;<BR><STRONG>Take Action Now! Contact your Representative and ask them to co-sponsor and support labeling and safety testing og GE foods</STRONG></P> alert 2006-06-07 2010-05-21 http://img.getactivehub.com/alert_images/take_action.gif United States Senate United States House of Representatives I am writing to urge you to support and co-sponsor legislation to require the mandatory labeling and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act would require labels on gene altered food, and the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act would call for federal standards for safety assessments of these experimental foods now in our stores. It is shocking that the FDA has never developed binding federal rules to protect consumers from the food safety risks of genetically engineered foods. Unlike crops from traditional breeding, genetically engineered crops contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes, viral promoters and foreign proteins never before consumed by humans. Yet the FDA relies on the very companies that have a financial interest in bringing these biotech crops to market to assess their safety. FDA has stated, "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" of gene altered foods. Congress must step up and fill the gaping regulatory hole left by the FDA to protect American consumers. The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act would fill this hole by requiring mandatory pre-market safety testing for all GE foods. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Here in America, we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations we don't have that choice when it comes to GE ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families. Labeling is essential for me to choose whether or not I want to consume genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world. As an American, I firmly believe I should also have the right to know if my foods have been genetically engineered. If food makers like Kraft and Kellogg's can label the products they sell in these countries, they can certainly do it in the U.S. A recent poll released by ABC News found that 92 percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling on genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare." I hope you will listen to me and the other 92 percent of the American public who want mandatory labeling and show your support for American consumers by supporting and co-sponsoring the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. I look forward to a written response confirming your support. Thank you!