More DARK Act Shenanigans (Re-Post from OCA)

TOP NEWS OF THE WEEK Highway Robbery Late Thursday (July 7) night, 63 U.S. Senators voted to rob you of the right to know what’s in your food. If you watched any of the Senate “debate” (limited to 30 hours) on the Roberts-Stabenow DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, you heard one after another of these 63 Senators misrepresent this industry-written bill as a “uniform federal mandatory labeling solution.” If you’ve been working on this issue with us for weeks, or months or years, you know that’s a lie. The bill passed last night is intended to hide information (behind electronic codes) from consumers, not provide it—in plain English, on a label. The bill passed last night is intended to exempt the vast majority of GMOs from even having to be hidden behind codes, much less labeled in plain sight. The bill passed last night is voluntary—it contains no enforcement mechanism, no penalties for non-compliance. The bill passed last night is an attack on democracy, an attack on states’ rights. It not only overturns Vermont’s carefully considered and fairly debated mandatory GMO labeling law, but as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted in his speech on the Senate floor, this bill overturns nearly 100 other state laws. (Sanders pushed hard to stop this bill). The bill passed last night is a fraud, an affront to the nine out of 10 Americans who want what citizens in 64 countries already have—the basic right to know what’s in our food. The 63 Senators who sided with (and took hundreds of millions of dollars from) Monsanto and Big Food, stole your right to know, and whatever shred of belief you might still have had in the democratic process. But they did not steal your power to boycott any brand or company that refuses to label GMOs. They did not steal your determination to take back an unhealthy, toxic, corrupt corporate food and farming system. On Wednesday (July 6), during the cloture vote (which assured that the Roberts-Stabenow bill would not be open for discussion or amendments), OCA led a protest on the Senate floor. That protest led to the arrest and detainment, for over 24 hours, of our political director, Alexis Baden-Mayer. We didn’t change the vote. But we took a stand. The Roberts-Stabenow bill will now go back to the U.S. House, which in July 2015 passed its own version of the DARK Act. If the House and Senate reach an agreement, Congress will vote on a bill to keep you in the dark. That bill will then land on President Obama’s desk. We will continue to fight it all the way. We hope you will, too. Watch the OCA ‘money bomb’ protest
ESSAY OF THE WEEK Organic Traitors There’s nothing worse than being betrayed by one of your own—unless you’re betrayed by more than one of your own. While pretending to work on behalf of consumers who want mandatory GMO labeling laws, some of the “big names” in the organic industry actually helped cut a backroom deal on the Roberts-Stabenow bill, a bill that isn’t mandatory, doesn’t require actual labels, and exempts the most common GMO ingredients. The growing list of Organic Traitors includes the head of Whole Foods Market, Walter Robb; Gary Hirschberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Farm and the pseudo-pro GMO labeling group Just Label It; the Environmental Working Group, represented by Scott Faber, former head lobbyist for the pro-biotech Grocery Manufacturers Association; UNFI, the largest wholesaler of natural and organic foods; and the OTA, led by “natural” brands such as Smuckers and White Wave, and represented by their Board Chair Melissa Hughes from Organic Valley. These self-selected “Good Food” and “Organic” leaders told Congress members behind closed doors that the organic community would accept an industry-crafted DARK Act “compromise"—the Stabenow/Roberts bill— which eliminates mandatory GMO labeling and preempts the Vermont law with a convoluted and deceptive federal regime for QR codes and 1-800 numbers, exempts the most common GMO ingredients, comes with no firm guidelines for implementation, and no provisions whatsoever for enforcement. In fact, by some calculations, the Organic Trade Association alone persuaded 7 – 10 Senators to betray you, and vote for the DARK Act. That’s right, while you were working your hearts out to get labels on GMO foods, the Organic Traitors were working just as hard—to make sure you don’t. Read Ronnie’s essay
ACTION ALERT Let's Say 'Thanks!' When the U.S. Senate voted Thursday night to pass a federal law preempting Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, 30 Senators did the right thing. These 30 Senators voted against this anti-consumer, anti-states’ rights bill that was rammed through the Senate without due democratic process. Some of these Senators were no doubt under a lot of pressure from industry groups, and from their fellow Senators, including the authors of the bill, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), to go over to the DARK side. But they stood up to their deep-pocketed opponents. They voted with the people. Please take a minute to see if your Senators on the list of those who stood up for your right to know yesterday, then "tweet" them a thank you. It's also good to retweet the Senators' own tweets about yesterday's vote.  Remember—this bill still has to make its way through the House, survive a full vote in Congress and be signed into law by President Obama. Let's keep the Senators who voted with us by showing our thanks! TAKE ACTION: Tweet your Senators!
SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF Grateful We were busy this week. Meeting with Senators and their staffers in multiple cities. Protesting outside Senate home district offices. And in one case, getting arrested for pointing out the obvious on the Senate floor—that Monsanto is buying votes to keep us in the dark about GMOs. Staff in Chicago worked hard to bring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) over to our side—and at the last minute, succeeded. Staff in Minneapolis protested often and loudly outside Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) office after attempts to win her over failed. In Portland, Maine, we and our allies at Food & Water Watch managed a last-minute video conference with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on the morning of the cloture vote, and a conference call with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) just hours before that vote. They voted our way. From our office in Finland, Minn., staff relentlessly responded to calls, made calls, kept up with last-minute developments. As we touched base with each other in between meetings and protests and making phone calls and sending letters, we all expressed this same sentiment: We are honored to be doing this work. And we are grateful to you for making it possible. Thank you for pulling through for us again during our latest fundraising campaign. Whether we ultimately win or lose this labeling battle, thanks to you, we are building a food and farming movement that is stronger than ever. While Monsanto continues to bribe our lawmakers, we will continue to expose the industrial agriculture system for what it is: toxic, corrupt, monopolistic and degenerative. And we will win. Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education) Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our GMO labeling legislative efforts)
VIDEO OF THE WEEK Four. Hundred. Million. Why would the U.S. Senate vote to keep the words “produced with genetic engineering” off of food products—when 90 percent of Americans want this basic information? And 64 other countries require it? In comments he made July 1 in Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders sums it up this way: “The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which sued and lost in trying to stop Vermont’s law, has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone. They spent $8.5 million lobbying between 2015-2016, and they’re still lobbying . . . . The food and biotech industries and their trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose state labeling initiatives, like [Vermont’s] Act 120. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that mention GMO labeling, the total amount spent by corporate interests is close to $400 million.” It doesn’t matter which political party you belong to. It doesn’t even matter if you support mandatory labeling of GMO foods. What matters is this: As long as we allow corporations to buy votes, we can’t claim to have a democracy. Watch the video
NEW REPORT Fatter Subsidies, Fattier Foods We can think of a lot of reasons we as taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize millions upon millions of acres of genetically engineered corn, soy and other crops—monoculture crops that destroy biodiversity, deplete soils, and contribute to global warming. Now, a new study in JAMA Internal Medicine confirms that the crops our government subsidizes also produce food that’s bad for us. From PoliticoPro: The researchers used 24-hour dietary recall data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They calculated what portion of caloric intake was from subsidized foods for each individual and then looked at health outcomes, including body mass index, abdominal fat and blood pressure, between 2001 and 2006. The researchers found that about 56 percent of all calories consumed were from subsidized commodities. Adults in the top quarter of subsidized crop calorie consumption had a greater risk of a higher body mass index, higher cholesterol and other health concerns. They found no statistically significant association with subsidized food consumption and blood pressure, however. The paper says shifting subsidies to fruits and vegetables might be worth exploring, pointing to a time when Finland helped dairy farmers transition to berry production, which increased local berry consumption. From 1995-2014, your tax dollars subsidized $94.3 billion worth of GMO corn alone. Isn’t it time we started subsidizing regenerative agriculture, instead of degenerative GMO commodity crops? Read Time magazine coverage Read the abstract
ECO TOURS Deadline: July 9! If you’re looking to combine international travel, adventure and organic food and agriculture education, you’re in luck. OCA, along with our Regeneration International and Vía Orgánica projects, have scheduled a full slate of eight-day eco tours in the central highlands of Mexico. Deadline for the next tour, which starts on August 9, is July 9. If you can’t make the August tour, you can also register ahead of time for another of the upcoming tours (dates and deadlines here). Our eco tours include accommodations at Vía Orgánica’s eco ranch and farm school, which serves as an educational farm and training center for farmers, students and activists in the organic food movement. The ranch includes a natural retreat center with adobe buildings, walking trails, solar power, rainwater catchment, and greywater and composting systems. Tours also include side trips to San Miguel de Allende and other World Heritage sites, trail rides and nature walks, horseback riding, and organic farming and cooking workshops—and of course, the opportunity to join in lively discussions with OCA and Vía Orgánica staff and other tour participants. Cost for accommodations and all-organic meals is $1250 per person. Learn more For more information or to register contact: tour@organicconsumers.org
LITTLE BYTES Essential Reading for the Week Factory Farming and Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)—Worldwide Distributors of Disease How the World’s Most Fertile Soil Can Help Reverse Climate Change Genetically Engineered Crops: the Grand and Failed Promise Side Effects of Long-Term Pesticide Exposure Systemic Corruption at FDA Reported From Mommy Bloggers to Clandestine Spies, Here's How Monsanto's PR Company Controls the GMO Debate

Wake Up, America - Save Our Land!

I'm back! I hope everyone had a fantastic Independence Day!

I've had to deal with an inordinate amount of pain, but I feel the need to reach out to you today, dear readers. We've had a number of disturbing occurrences, and they require our attention.

First off - the Sierra Club has announced that last year, we lost 44% of bee colonies, due to neonicotinoids. They ask that we all contact our representatives and request...no, DEMAND, that they pass the Saving America's Pollinators Act. Click the preceding link to obtain further information.



Monsanto has created the dreaded FrankenWeed.

I've mentioned the Hagmann and Hagmann Report - here's a link to their latest episode...and yes, it involves the decision by FBI Director James Comey to not indict presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other things.

Speaking of that ill-advised decision - I've made this point before, but I think it bears repeating:

You like in a multiple dwelling. It doesn't have to be an apartment building, but someplace where your doors are adjacent to each other. You work in the morning, and you come home, take care of things and retire for the next day of work. 

Your neighbor parties all day and all night. You've never seen them leave to go to work; of course, it's none of your business.

One morning, you happen to wake up early, and, being so close to the time you need to arise, you just start getting ready early. You leave a bit earlier than you usually do, and when you step out of your door, you see the weirdest thing. 

There is a huge stack of bills in front of your neighbor's door.

Well, it doesn't belong to you, so you leave...but the thought nags at you all day.

You arrive at home, and you try to put the thought out of your mind. You can't - the thought eats at you all night, and once again, you wake up early.

This time, the first thing you do is to check for the aforementioned money.

Just like before, there is a stack of money in front of your neighbor's door.

This time, you grab about a third of the stack, and then you return to your apartment, and get ready for work.

Of course, now you're dreading the inevitable phone call.

It never comes.

The whole way home, you're imagining the note that you know will be left upon your door.

You arrive home...and there is no note.

You open your door...no envelope. No voicemail. Nothing.

You breathe a sigh of relief.

You eventually go to sleep...and now you wake up early with a purpose.

This time, you go to the neighbor's door, and you take half of the money.

The next day, you do it again.

The following day...and so on, and so on...

The neighbor never says a bad word to you; never shoots you accusing looks; it seems that they are totally oblivious as to your theft.

If you can steal this money, without repercussion...why would you STOP?!?

When you allow criminals to escape punishment, you embolden them to commit further crimes.

If you want to see a non-violent example of this, this weekend, watch Inside Job, Margin Call and The Big Short. It seems the only people to ever be indicted were:

• Ivan Boesky (who parked money with his ex-wife; once he finished his sentence, he sued her for the funds, citing, "he can't live as a poor man". He got those funds, IIRC);
• Michael Milken
• Bernard Madoff
• Martha Stewart (and that was a SCAM from beginning to end)

The murder of JFK and the inaction that followed set the stage for the murders of RFK (which had been captured on film by Jamie Scott Enyart, performed by Thane Eugene Caesar), MLK (the shirt Jesse Jackson had on was dabbled in chicken blood!) and Malcolm X, among others.

The FBI doesn't get to forego investigations because of "lack of intent". Director Comey admitted that numerous crimes were committed, regardless of "intent":

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Here's the full statement on YouTube.

The DARK Act is still being disguised - the OCA requests that you call 888-897-0174 and tell your representatives to oppose Sen. Stabenow's attempt to pass the DARK Act under a pretense. Dr. Ted Broer and his son Austin (still praying for you, brother!) mentioned on their show that this bill would block the recently passed law in Vermont that now mandates labeling GMO foods; in fact, not only would this bill allow for 50% of GMOs in foods to not be labeled as such, it would also not label GMOs in meat at all!

You can also call 202-224-3121.

Please call; tell your friends; avoid half-steppers such as Whole Foods.

Your wallet has a voice - YOURS.

Monsanto's First Lady?

Happy Father's Day, dear readers!

First of all...why is Michelle Obama in cahoots with Monsanto in attempting to craft childrens' school  menus?

GMO Hypocrisy and Double Standards against the working Class Americans

The average consumers are becoming more and more aware of the health risks associated with foods that are contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, growth hormones or genetically modified.

Surprisingly, many government officials and corporate elites who promote genetically modified foods publicly, eat only organic privately.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama mentioned that the public had the right to know if their foods are genetically modified. Now four years later, GMOs are banned in 27 different countries but the biotech industry and FDA don’t even acknowledge that there is any difference in genetically modified foods compared to traditional foods. It’s pretty amazing how Michelle Obama, the first lady, launches a campaign to fight childhood obesity and digs up the White House front lawn to plant an organic vegetable garden and on the other hand her husband shakes hands with biotech industry and appoints, Mike Taylor, the former VP and attorney of Monsanto, as FDA deputy commissioner.

Michelle Obama insisted, during Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, that their family has been on organic diet for the past few years. Yet President Obama has made no efforts to lead America towards healthier food production with temporary halt to GMO foods while conducting a comprehensive research study of its long term side effects. In fact, he has not even made any attempts to simply label GMO to protect babies, pregnant women and those with chronic diseases. Activists, minorities, women and the young who voted for Obama hoped that his policies will be different than George W Bush. During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, his supporters got the signals that Obama will make a real difference and start reform by putting the demands of the average American ahead of few corporate elites.

So far Obama’s policies seem far away from the promises he made in 2008 presidential election. Soon after he took office he appointed Roger Beachy, the former director at Monsanto as head of USDA, Tom Vilsack, creator of Governors' Biotechnology Partnership as the commissioner of USDA and Mike Taylor, the former Monsanto’s attorney and VP as the deputy commissioner of FDA. On the other hand, Obama's opponent Mitt Romney hasn’t revealed any details about his agricultural policies like his economic and healthcare policies. But since actions speak stronger than words, let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s romantic ties to Monsanto.

Recently Wayne Barrett, as reported on The Nation explained how Mitt Romney helped Monsanto to dominate the world’s chemical and GMO seeds.

How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World

Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

Ironically, according to Peter Alexander, Mitt Romney, a man who helped Monsanto to dominate the world’s GMO seeds and chemicals, secretly eats organic. Ann Romney, his wife is also on organic diet and sometimes eats grass fed meat.

Mitt's favorite sandwich and more food dish from Romney Air

It is quiet amazing how both presidential candidates have promoted genetically modified foods but have been privately avoiding GMOs by eating only organic and grass fed meats. Interesting enough the former presidents including both Clinton and Bush were also on organic diet according to the former White House executive chef Walter Scheib.

The Presidential Palate

The biotech and chemical companies including Monsanto are aggressively pursuing their anti-GMO labeling policies by bribing lobbyists and politicians. You would think that the staff and scientists who work for these companies don’t have a problem eating GMOs and contaminated foods with pesticides. However recently Monsanto’s canteen removed all the food items that were genetically modified because the staff in Monsanto demanded foods that weren’t sprayed with pesticides or been genetically modified. Monsanto agreed to remove all GMO items and Tony Coombes, Monsanto’s spokesman ensured Monsanto’s staff that all the GMOs were removed and publicly reassured their employees by saying, “yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice."

GM food banned in Monsanto canteen

But the word “CHOICE” is quite laughable coming from Monsanto among the big “6 pesticide firms” who have been campaigning and spending 19 million dollars so far to kill Proposition No.37. What is ironic is that Monsanto believes in the choice of their staff for non-GMO or contaminated foods with pesticides but on the other hand ignores and disrespects the choice of the whole nation for non-GMO and organic foods that aren’t contaminated with pesticides. This is hypocrisy and double standards against the freedom of choice in America and against the interest of the American people.

The Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney families, and GMO scientists at Monsanto, all eat organic foods only. But American consumers who must be protected and represented by their government are gradually poisoned every day with foods that contain high levels of pesticides or are genetically modified. The whole purpose of having a government in the first place is to solve the problems that we as individuals can’t solve alone. But unfortunately GMO foods and foods that are contaminated with pesticides and growth hormones are regulated and presented as safe by the government. This corrupt political system and the Washington corporate lobbying are now causing serious consequences in the health and well being of the hard working American people and resulting in cancer and chronic diseases as well as record levels of allergies among children.

- See more at: http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/gmo-hypocrisy-double-standards/#sthash.TYVwPXxV.dpuf

Lastly, an email from OCA:

View This Email On the Web

Eyes of the Future The Eyes of the Future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time. – Terry Tempest Williams Dear Vincent, On Thursday of this past week, Monsanto’s minions in the U.S. Senate claimed they were "just inches away" from snagging the 60 votes they need to snuff out Vermont’s mandatory labeling law. They have five more business days—until Friday, June 24—to get a bill to President Obama in time to keep Vermont's law from going into effect July 1. That means we have five days to stop them. This week, we kicked off our summer online fundraising campaign. Please help us raise $200,000 by midnight June 30, so we can protect Vermont's law and  take the GMO labeling battle to the next level.  You can donate online, or by U.S. mail or by phone, details here. Win or lose the GMO labeling battle, we have our work cut out for us. Because win or lose, labels or no labels, Monsanto’s Roundup will still be poisoning us. And factory farms will still be polluting our drinking water, killing the oceans, and contributing to a public health crisis with their reckless use of antibiotics. So far, you’ve helped us keep Congress from snuffing out Vermont’s law. We couldn’t have come this far without you. Thank you. Still, we haven't crossed the finish line yet. Sens. Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow will burn the midnight oil if they have to next week to hand Monsanto a victory. Just so you know, we’ll be burning the midnight oil right along with them. Mobilizing teams of labeling advocates. Writing letters. Making phone calls. Knocking on Senate office doors. But we’re also looking to the future. And what we see out there is a food and farming system, labels or no labels, that is dominated by greedy, ruthless corporations whose singular focus on shareholder profits blinds them to the devastating consequences of their bad behavior. For example: About 250 million pounds of Monsanto’s glyphosate are sprayed on food crops, lawns and parks in this country, every year. Glyphosate—classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Glyphosate—present in 93 percent of people who sent urine samples for testing . . . and in 100 percent of European Parliament members who were tested. Glyphosate—250 million pounds of it—linked to everything from allergies to birth defects to kidney failure to cancer. "It is going to be incomprehensible to future generations how our generation could have let glyphosate poison the earth's ecosystems, cause multiple species die-offs, and destroy global human health for over four decades, while standing by and doing nothing to stop the devastation.” - Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT. You have become the greatest threat to Monsanto and Big Food. Win or lose the GMO labeling battle, we need you to help double the size of this movement, so we can take on the factory farms, the junk food giants and the Biotech Bullies.. We need you to help create a future where our food will be real food. Nutrient-dense food. Toxin-free food. Food grown using methods that heal, not harm, the earth. Food that doesn't need to be labeled because it's just . . . food. Please help us raise $200,000 by midnight June 30, so we can protect Vermont's labeling law and take the GMO labeling battle to the next level.  You can donate online, or by U.S. mail or by phone, details here. The “Eyes of the Future” are looking back at us. In solidarity, Ronnie Cummins International Director P.S. We can't wait for corporations or politicians to do the right thing. The food movement was built from the ground up. It's success depends on grassroots support. We rely on individual donors like yourself for nearly 80 percent of our budget. Every donation counts. Please know that every donation, no matter how small, is critical to this fight. Donate online here.