I've got good news and bad news...

I wanted to give a shout out to those members of Congress who signed the bicameral letter requiring the FDA to label genetically engineered foods.

Here's the full news release from the Center for Food Safety.

Particular kudos to Pete DeFazio for taking the lead on this issue, along with Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici. Let's hear it for Oregon's congressional delegation!

What's particularly impressive is the amount of public interest in this issue; in just six months, the FDA has received over 850,000 signatures demanding GE labeling.

And now, the bad news:

Not that this should come as a surprise to anybody, but megacorporations are co-opting the work of anti-hunger organizations. You can read more about it here. My favorite (ironic) part of this article:

"Tres Bailey, Walmart’s Senior Manager of Agriculture and Food, listed off the accomplishments the company has made in its first year of its $2 billion commitment to supporting anti-hunger efforts: 250 million pounds of food donated to food banks; $67 million in grants made; with another $13 million of nutrition education grants in the works.

This sounds impressive until one considers what Mr. Bailey did not mention: the fact that the average Walmart worker, of which there are 1.4 million in the US, earns $8.81 per hour. At this pay rate, a single parent with one child working full time would qualify for food stamps."

Monsanto foiled in U.S. Court

Great news about Monsanto, for a change:

From the Center for Food Safety: 

COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSES MONSANTO’S APPEAL OF BIOTECH BEETS CASE, PRESERVES VICTORY FOR FARMERS, ENVIRONMENT

San Francisco, CA – May 20, 2011 – Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order concluding a long-standing lawsuit over the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) ”Roundup Ready” sugar beets. As a result, previous court rulings in favor of farmers and conservation advocates will remain, including the order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a rigorous review of the impacts of GE sugar beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, before deciding whether to again allow their future commercial use.

Here's a link to the complete news release:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2011/05/20/court-of-appeals-dismisses-monsantos-appeal-of-biotech-beets-case-preserves-victory-for-farmers-environment/

Legal matters

Last week, the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the USDA challenging the USDA's decision to allow the planting of GM alfalfa. You can read more about it in their joint press release here.

In other legal news, the Iowa state house last week approved a bill that would criminalize secret videotaping of activities on farms, specifically related to the mistreatment of animals. While the ag industry is crying victim here, saying they're being held hostage by PETA and other animal rights groups, the larger issue is that investigations into farm and animal conditions would be illegal, if video was used. The bill could also apply to crops, not just animals. In other words, the makers of Food, Inc., could, under this bill, have been arrested if they'd filmed in Iowa and this bill had been law at the time the film was made. Florida is reportedly also considering a similar bill. The Iowa Senate has yet to weigh in.

If you're an ag company and you're supporting a bill that would make it illegal to video your crops, exactly what are you hiding? Yes, that is a somewhat rhetorical question, but I ask it because I don't personally know a single farmer who'd object to anyone filming their farming practices.

Other thoughts? I'd share more of mine but am posting this while I should be writing program notes. Back to Bartók.