Hi Marylyn, Thanks for the articles. I belong to OCA, a great orginization that is struggling to keep organic organic against big industrial agriculturilists who want to totally destroy its meaning and significance. Do you have any updates about Codex Alimentarius? Is that still lurking in the background? Yep, NAIS will have a big negative impact on the small farmer, for sure. They should be excluded from it. It is another bad idea in a very long string of them coming from BushCo. It is a coincidence that I attended a seminar on detoxing a couple nights ago and most of the time was spent discussing the liver, the human liver of course :-) Peace and light, D. Mindock P.S. I will have to check out rachel.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marylynn Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:24 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Rachel's News - NAIS > While I was aware that the original organic movement .. consumer driven > was > taken over by the government quite a few years ago .. I was not aware the > the USDA was the governing agency .. but of course, if I had thought about > it that would have seemed obvious. > > But who could have imagined somethings so vile. > > It would be my opinion that organic growers .. given the facts of NAIS .. > would constitute a very strong voice .. with or without animals .. they > generally are intelligent people who have the ability to connect the dots. > > There could/would be - easily - enough of a ground swell to place > information packets in Health Food Stores and begin to reach beyond the > "animal" people. > > There are enough of these people who have been so "chemical" compromised > that their very lives (or the lives of their children/loved one) depend on > being able to obtain chemical free foods. > > That limited source is only from those very Mom and Pop farms the USDA and > their NAIS programs are most likely to cause to "go away" because of > either > their eradication program or the simple financial burdon of trying to stay > in business. > > I am also aware that now that the "organic" label is in the hands of a > government agency (sorry, I've forgotten just how many of the panel are > needed from "each" category) there is a major push from factory farms to > relax the "organic" standards. > > For the record I do purchase from an "Natural" farm .. 3 generations that > never went chemical .. they raise their own beef, turkey, chickens .. if > you > eat one of their turkeys you will take a nap .. but it tastes like turkey > and not like wet cardboard. > > I feed raw with my dogs and I did purchase the "WHOLE LIVER" from this > farmer .. I'll never do it again, but that's because it was something like > 25 pounds .. but I learned a wonderful lesson with that purchase. > > The liver is the first to show signs of body disintegration .. back in the > 80's, something like 80% of all calves liver was unfit for human > consumption > due to liver distruction .. I do not believe those percentages have > improved. > > If any farmer is willing to let any consumer see that whole liver he has > absolutely nothing to hide. > > BUT .. I am also aware that the ability to "talk" with farmers isn't > available because we don't have the access .. living in large cities .. > and > or don't have the inclination and/or observation. > > I will repeat what I've said in a previous post .. this whole agency needs > to be dis-banded .. and dis-banded NOW!! > > Mary Lynn > > Rev. Mary Lynn Schmidt, Ordained Minister > ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART > TTouch . Reiki . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Animal Behavior Modification > . > Shamanic Spiritual Travel . Behavior Problems . Psionic Energy > Practitioner > . Radionics . Herbs . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Polarity . > The Animal Connection Healing Modalities > http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ > http://allcreatureconnections.org > > > > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Reply-To: "Rachel News" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Rachel News" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Rachel's News #855: Nanotech Showdown >>Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:32:45 -0400 > > > >>From: Satya, Apr. 15, 2006 >>[Printer-friendly version] >> >>THE ROTTEN SIDE OF ORGANICS -- INTERVIEW WITH RONNIE CUMMINS >> >>The Satya Interview with Ronnie Cummins >> >>Many compassionate consumers believe that buying organic food is the >>only way to go. The label "organic" means refuge from pesticides, >>chemicals and the damaging practices of the commercial food industry. >>High-quality, mouth-watering, nutrient-rich produce -- all harvested >>fresh from the farm, right? We tend to assume organic food producers >>are all small farmers who combine ecologically sound farming practices >>with a political agenda to promote and develop local sustainable food >>systems. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. >> >>The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) formed in 1998 after organic >>consumers criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed >>national regulations for organic certification of food. Today the OCA, >>a nonprofit public interest organization, strives for health, justice >>and sustainability, and takes on such crucial issues as food safety, >>industrial agriculture, corporate accountability and fair trade. >> >>The OCA has been able to rally hundreds of thousands of consumers to >>pressure the USDA and organic companies to preserve strict organic >>standards. Kymberlie Adams Matthews had a chance to talk with OCA >>founder and National Director, Ronnie Cummins about uniting forces to >>challenge industrial agriculture, corporate globalization, and >>inspiring consumers to "Buy local, organic, and fair made." >> >>KAM: Can you discuss the corporate takeover of the organic food >>market? >> >>RC: Well the good news is there is a huge demand on the part of health >>conscious and environmentally conscious consumers for organic >>products. On the downside, right now there is a shortage of organic >>foods and ingredients in the marketplace. And unfortunately, >>corporations are noting this huge demand and are not only moving into >>the organic sector, but doing it in a way which is not helping >>American farmers and ranchers go organic. Instead, they are basically >>degrading organic standards, bending the rules and starting to >>outsource from slave labor and exploitive nations such as China for >>organic foods and ingredients. >> >>KAM: What kind of impact is this having on our food? >> >>RC: Well the most glaring example presently is the blatant disregard >>for organic standards in the dairy sector. Right now 40 percent of >>organic milk is coming from Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic, >>producers who are both practicing intensive confinement of farmed >>animals, allowing them no access to pasture. They are also regularly >>importing calves from industrial farms and simply calling them >>organic. These heifers have been weaned on blood, administered >>antibiotics, and fed slaughterhouse waste and GMO grains. Again, this >>is not helping thousands of humane family-scale farmers make the >>transition to organic. Instead they are changing the rules and >>allowing industrial agriculture to call it organic. >> >>And then there is the corporate takeover of organic food brands. >>This is a major trend, all the way from Unilever taking over Ben and >>Jerry's to General Mills taking over Cascadian Farms and Muir Glen. >>These transnationals deliberately conceal the names of the parent >>corporation on the label because they know those corporations have >>such a terrible reputation that consumers would be unlikely to want to >>buy the products. Also, for the most part, they do not list the >>country of origin on the label. So organic consumers continue to buy >>their products, while remaining in the dark about who produced them >>and where they were produced. For example, people who buy the top- >>selling soy milk Silk, don't know that Silk is actually owned by Dean >>Foods, the $10 billion dairy conglomerate notorious for bottom line >>business practices such as injecting their cows with bovine growth >>hormone and paying the lowest prices possible to dairy farmers. They >>also don't know that the soy beans in Silk are likely coming in from >>China and Brazil rather than the U.S. or North America. >> >>What about the organic standards in China? Are they the same as here? >>There has been a lot of criticism that Chinese organic products are >>not really organic. But certainly the most incontestable fact about >>Chinese organics is that the workers are paid nearly nothing for their >>work. It is slave labor. >> >>KAM: That's madness! What can we do about this? >> >>RC: We are going to have to stop companies from outsourcing the >>organic foods and ingredients that they can buy here. One way to do >>that is to pressure companies to put the country of origin on their >>label. Congress actually passed a law three years ago -- after >>receiving a lot of pressure from consumers -- requiring country of >>origin labels. >> >>Unfortunately, they turned around and listened to corporate >>agribusiness and never allocated the money for labeling enforcement. >>Then last fall in the waning days of the Congressional session, they >>passed a rider that would delay the country of origin labeling law for >>at least two more years. >> >>How important is food safety to American consumers today? >> >>Eighty percent of American consumers tell pollsters they are very >>concerned about food safety issues while the majority says they are >>more concerned than they were last year! It's understandable. We have >>alarming levels of food poisoning -- 87 million cases a year -- >>leading to >>thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations. And >>that's only the short-term damage. Consumers are becoming more and >>more aware of the long-term damage -- the chronic sickness and illness >>derived from the cheap food and junk food paradigm. >> >>There was a story in the London Times that reports high levels of >>benzene in soda pop! Nearly every day there is a story regarding mad >>cow disease, pesticide levels, and toxic chemicals; yet the federal >>government wants to restrict food labels. Two-thirds of organic >>consumers say food safety is the primary reason for paying a premium >>price for organic foods. The natural food and organic food market is >>growing enormously. Ten cents out of every grocery store dollar is now >>spent by consumers on products labeled either natural or organic. >> >>KAM: I'm curious, what is the difference between "natural" and >>"organic"? >> >>RC: "Natural" is mainly a marketing tool. It simply means that there >>are not supposed to be any artificial flavors, colors or preservatives >>in the product. But a lot of consumers are still learning about food >>safety and they believe that "natural" products, like organic >>products, are safer than foods that don't bear that label. >> >>There has been a steady dynamic in the marketplace over the past ten >>years. Companies that market "natural" products are tending to move to >>"made with organic ingredients" and products marketed with "made with >>organic ingredients" move on to "95 or 100 percent organic." There is >>no doubt that within 5-10 years the majority of products in grocery >>stores are going to bear a label that says "natural" or "organic." And >>within 10 or 15 years most things will have an "organic" label on >>them. >> >>KAM: But with the way things are going, what will the standards mean >>by then? >> >>RC: Well, that is what we are facing right now. If we allow >>corporations to take over the organic sector and degrade organic >>standards, then most organic products will be coming from China and >>sold at Wal-Mart. And you will not be able to trust the label. We are >>going to have to get better organized than we are now, both in the >>marketplace and politically and make some fundamental changes in >>policies. For example, right now there are no subsidies helping >>American ranchers and farmers go organic. This is ridiculous given the >>huge demand. So we are going to have to stop the $20 billion annual >>subsidies going to industrial agriculture and intensive confinement >>farming and start subsidizing the transition to organic. >> >>We also obviously need to subsidize farms being able to adopt >>renewable energy practices and to develop and expand local and >>regional markets. Studies indicate that 25 percent of greenhouse >>gasses in the U.S. are generated by industrial agriculture and long- >>distance food transportation. We need to switch over to sustainable >>practices if we are going to slow down and stop the climate chaos that >>is accelerating. To fund this we're also going to have to stop the >>administration's insane project for world domination and begin >>dismantling the military-industrial complex. >> >>KAM: In terms of transportation and its effects on the environment, >>what is your take on local vs. organic produce? >> >>RC: The Organic Consumers Association launched a long-term campaign >>last fall called Breaking the chains: Buy local, organic, and fair >>made. We believe it is time to raise the bar on organic standards. We >>need to recognize that the label USDA Organic is a good first step, >>but it is just the beginning. We have got to start reducing food miles >>and reducing the greenhouse gas pollution by creating a food system >>similar to what we had 60 years ago -- local and regional production >>for local and regional markets. Family sized farms need to become the >>norm again and not the exception. We also to need to think hard about >>things, like 80 percent of the world's grain is going to feed animals, >>not people, and begin eating lower on the food chain if we are going >>to survive. >> >>KAM: Fair made, I like that. Will the campaign touch on labor >>practices on organic farms? People think organic means humane >>treatment of workers, but that is not always the case. >> >>RC: Thirty years ago, the roots of the new organic movement came out >>of an anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-justice movement. As the >>founders of the new wave of food coops in the late-1960s, we believed >>that organic meant justice as well as health and sustainability. >>Unfortunately, the federal organic standards that the USDA passed in >>2002 did not incorporate the demands of groups like the Organic >>Consumers Association who said that social justice had to be criteria. >>So they passed a very narrow definition of "organic" that just >>included production methods in terms of pesticides, synthetic >>chemicals and the impact on the environment. They didn't take into >>consideration the treatment of small farmers or farm workers. So it >>has been left to us as consumers to exert pressure in the marketplace >>to make sure that organic means justice too. >> >>We have seen a strong growth the last few years in the fair trade >>movement which is now a $600 million market globally. And finally the >>fair trade movement and the organic movement are starting to work >>together. We are involved in a long-term project with a number of >>organic companies and farm organizations to create a new Fair Trade or >>Fair Made label, which will be both certified fair trade and certified >>organic. We think this is necessary. Until we can get the USDA and the >>government to see things the way we do, we need to have our own label >>and be able to point out to consumers that the USDA label doesn't >>include social justice as a criteria. >> >>KAM: What do you think is the main problem facing the organic movement >>today? >> >>RC: Part of the overall problem is that our social change and >>progressive movement has been fragmented for the last 30 years. >>Perhaps this fragmentation or specialization was initially beneficial >>or necessary to understand and focus on all the issues and types of >>oppression in our particular sectors and organize our sectors, but it >>is time we start to bring it all together in a great synergy. The >>movements for health, justice and sustainability must work together in >>this age of Peak Oil, permanent war, and climate chaos. >> >>If the organic community does not unite its forces with the anti-war >>movement, with the movements for environmentalism, social justice, >>animal rights, then we are not going to make any changes. As we say >>increased market share for organic and fairtrade products in the age >>of Armageddon and climate chaos is not going to count for very much. >> >>We really have to stop thinking single issues and start thinking >>movement building. For this reason, every one of the OCA's campaigns >>is trying to reach out to other movements and show them that we are >>willing to work in a holistic way to raise consciousness over the full >>range of issues, and we are asking them to do the same. >> >>For example right now I have been participating in a series of >>national conference calls with the Climate Crisis Coalition. It is >>very good to see that the climate crisis leaders understand that 25 >>percent of global greenhouse gasses are coming from industrial >>agriculture and long-distance food transportation, and that we are not >>going to stabilize the climate unless we convert global and U.S. >>agriculture production to local and regional production. So they are >>willing to help us as we lobby to change the farm bill and the yearly >>agriculture appropriations. >> >>KAM: It is so true. All of the movements are linked. >> >>RC: It doesn't do any good to buy local, organic and fair made if you >>then hop on an airplane or jump into a gas-guzzling car without >>thinking . We have to take on the climate crisis issue together -- >>this is the number one issue in the world. If we don't stop this, >>there isn't going to be any food period -- much less organic food for >>the future generations. The same thing with the anti-war movement. We >>have to start talking about solutions to permanent war. Not just bring >>the troops home from this particular war. The reason we are in Iraq, >>the reason we are probably going to start a war in Iran shortly, is >>because of oil. We are going to keep having these wars until we have >>energy independence -- until we convert our economy into something >>that is renewable and sustainable. And we are not going to do this >>with the organic community, the environmental community, the animal >>rights community and the anti-war communities working on our different >>issues in isolation. We have to create synergy between them all. >> >>KAM: How did you get involved in the organic food movement? >> >>RC: I grew up in Texas. In the 1960s I got involved in the civil >>rights movement and in the anti-war movement. And part of what all the >>participants in those movements understood at the time was that we had >>to create one big movement to deal with all the interrelated issues. >>Food and coops were a strategic part of what we called the New Left >>and the counter-culture. Many consumer food cooperatives and the new >>wave of the organic movement came out of the anti-war movement. >> >>Frances Moore Lappe laid it out for a lot of us in Diet For a Small >>Planet, "The act of putting into your mouth what the earth has grown >>is perhaps your most direct interaction with the earth." In other >>words, what you do with your knife and fork has a lot to do with world >>peace and justice. >> >>For more information visit www.organicconsumers.org. >> >>Copyright STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1994-2006 >> >>Return to Table of Contents >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >>From: TomPaine.com, May 11, 2006 >>[Printer-friendly version] >> >>WAR ON THE WEB >> >>By Robert B. Reich >> >>[Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda >>Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, >>Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.] >> >>This week, the House is expected to vote on something termed, in >>perfect Orwellian prose, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion >>and Enhancement Act of 2006." It will be the first real battle in the >>coming War of Internet Democracy. >> >>On one side are the companies that pipe the Internet into our homes >>and businesses. These include telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and >>cable companies like Comcast. Call them the pipe companies. >> >>On the other side are the people and businesses that send Internet >>content through the pipes. Some are big outfits like Yahoo, Google and >>Amazon, big financial institutions like Bank of America and Citigroup >>and giant media companies soon to pump lots of movies and TV shows on >>to the Internet. >> >>But most content providers are little guys. They're mom-and-pop >>operations specializing in, say, antique egg-beaters or Brooklyn >>Dodgers memorabilia. They're anarchists, kooks and zealots peddling >>all sorts of crank ideas They're personal publishers and small-time >>investigators. They include my son's comedy troupe -- streaming new >>videos on the Internet every week. They also include gazillions of >>bloggers -- including my humble little blog and maybe even yours. >> >>Until now, a basic principle of the Internet has been that the pipe >>companies can't discriminate among content providers. Everyone who >>puts stuff up on the Internet is treated exactly the same. The net is >>neutral. >> >>But now the pipe companies want to charge the content providers, >>depending on how fast and reliably the pipes deliver the content. >>Presumably, the biggest content providers would pay the most money, >>leaving the little content people in the slowest and least-reliable >>parts of the pipe. (It will take you five minutes to download my >>blog.) >> >>The pipe companies claim unless they start charge for speed and >>reliability, they won't have enough money to invest in the next >>generation of networks. This is an absurd argument. The pipes are >>already making lots of money off consumers who pay them for being >>connected to the Internet. >> >>The pipes figure they can make even more money discriminating between >>big and small content providers because the big guys have deep pockets >>and will pay a lot to travel first class. The small guys who pay >>little or nothing will just have to settle for what's left. >> >>The House bill to be voted on this week would in effect give the pipes >>the green light to go ahead with their plan. Price discrimination is >>as old as capitalism. Instead of charging everyone the same for the >>same product or service, sellers divide things up according to grade >>or quality. Buyers willing to pay the most can get the best, while >>other buyers get lesser quality, according to how much they pay. >>Theoretically, this is efficient. Sellers who also have something of a >>monopoly (as do the Internet pipe companies) can make a killing. >> >>But even if it's efficient, it's not democratic. And here's the rub. >>The Internet has been the place where Davids can take on Goliaths, >>where someone without resources but with brains and guts and >>information can skewer the high and mighty. At a time in our nation's >>history when wealth and power are becoming more and more concentrated >>in fewer and fewer hands, it's been the one forum in which all voices >>are equal. >> >>Will the pipe companies be able to end Internet democracy? Perhaps if >>enough of the small guys make enough of a fuss, Congress may listen. >>But don't bet on it. This Congress is not in the habit of listening to >>small guys. The best hope is that big content providers will use their >>formidable lobbying clout to demand net neutrality. The financial >>services sector, for example, is already spending billions on >>information technology, including online banking. Why would they want >>to spend billions more paying the pipe companies for the Internet >>access they already have? >> >>The pipe companies are busily trying to persuade big content providers >>that it's in their interest to pay for faster and more reliable >>Internet deliveries. Verizon's chief Washington lobbyist recently >>warned the financial services industry that if it supports net >>neutrality, it won't get the sophisticated data links it will need in >>the future. The pipes are also quietly reassuring the big content >>providers that they can pass along the fees to their customers. >> >>Will the big content providers fall for it? Stay tuned for the next >>episode of Internet democracy versus monopoly capitalism. >> >>Copyright 2006 TomPaine.com >> >>Return to Table of Contents >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >>From: KDKA (Pittsburgh, Pa.), May 15, 2006 >>[Printer-friendly version] >> >>BIOTECH FIRM RAISES FUROR WITH RICE PLAN >> >>By Paul Elias, Associated Press >> >>SAN FRANCISCO -- A tiny biosciences company is developing a promising >>drug to fight diarrhea, a scourge among babies in the developing >>world, but it has made an astonishing number of powerful enemies >>because it grows the experimental drug in rice genetically engineered >>with a human gene. >> >>Environmental groups, corporate food interests and thousands of >>farmers across the country have succeeded in chasing Ventria >>Bioscience's rice farms out of two states. And critics continue to >>complain that Ventria is recklessly plowing ahead with a mostly >>untested technology that threatens the safety of conventional crops >>grown for food. >> >>"We just want them to go away," said Bob Papanos of the U.S. Rice >>Producers Association. "This little company could cause major >>problems." >> >>Ventria, with 16 employees, practices "biopharming," the most >>contentious segment of agricultural biotechnology because its >>adherents essentially operate open-air drug factories by splicing >>human genes into crops to produce proteins that can be turned into >>medicines. >> >>Ventria's rice produces two human proteins found in mother's milk, >>saliva and tears, which help people hydrate and lessen the severity >>and duration of diarrhea attacks, a top killer of children in >>developing countries. >> >>But farmers, environmentalists and others fear that such medicinal >>crops will mix with conventional crops, making them unsafe to eat. >> >>The company says the chance of its genetically engineered rice ending >>up in the food supply is remote because the company grinds the rice >>and extracts the protein before shipping. What's more, rice is "self- >>pollinating," and it's virtually impossible for genetically engineered >>rice to accidentally cross breed with conventional crops. >> >>"We use a contained system," Ventria Chief Executive Scott Deeter >>said. >> >>Regardless, U.S. rice farmers in particular fear that important >>overseas customers in lucrative, biotechnology-averse countries like >>Japan will shun U.S. crops if biopharming is allowed to proliferate. >>Exports account for 50 percent of the rice industry's $1.18 billion in >>annual sales. >> >>Japanese consumers, like those in Western Europe, are still alarmed by >>past mad cow disease outbreaks mishandled by their governments, making >>them deeply skeptical of any changes to their food supply, including >>genetically engineered crops. >> >>Rice interests in California drove Ventria's experimental work out of >>the state in 2004, after Japanese customers said they wouldn't buy the >>rice if Ventria were allowed to set up shop. >> >>Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Riceland Foods Inc., the world's largest rice >>miller, were among the corporate interests that pressured the company >>to abandon plans to set up a commercial-scale farm in Missouri's rice >>belt last year. >> >>But Ventria was undeterred. The company, which has its headquarters in >>Sacramento, finally landed near Greenville, N.C. In March it received >>U.S. Department of Agriculture clearance to expand its operation there >>from 70 acres to 335 acres. Ventria is hoping to get regulatory >>clearance this year to market its diarrhea-fighting protein powder. >> >>There has been little resistance from corporate and farming interest >>in eastern North Carolina. But the company's work has raised the >>hackles of environmentalists there. >> >>"The issue is the growing of pharmaceutical products in food crops >>grown outdoors," said Hope Shand of the environmental nonprofit ETC >>Group in Carrboro, N.C. "The chance this will contaminate >>traditionally grown crops is great. This is a very risky business." >> >>Deeter points out that there aren't any commercial rice growers in >>North Carolina, although the USDA did allow Ventria to grow its >>controversial crop about a half-mile from a government "rice station," >>where new strains are tested. The USDA has since moved that station to >>Beltsville, Md., though an agency spokeswoman said the relocation had >>nothing to do with Ventria. >> >>The company, meanwhile, has applied to the Food and Drug >>Administration to approve the protein powder as a "medical food" >>rather than a drug. That means Ventria wouldn't have to conduct long >>and costly human tests. Instead, it submitted data from scientific >>experts attesting to the company's powder is "generally regarded as >>safe." >> >>Earlier this month, a Peruvian scientist sponsored by Ventria >>presented data at the Pediatric Academics Societies meeting in San >>Francisco. It showed children hospitalized in Peru with serious >>diarrhea attacks recovered quicker -- 3.67 days versus 5.21 days -- if >>the dehydration solution they were fed contained the powder. >> >>Ventria's chief executive said he hopes to have an approval this year >>and envisions a $100 million annual market in the United States. >>Deeter forecasts a $500 million market overseas, especially in >>developing countries where diarrhea is a top killer of children under >>the age of 5. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 2 >>million children succumb to diarrhea each year. >> >>But overcoming consumer skepticism and regulatory concerns about >>feeding babies with products derived from genetic engineering is a >>tall order. This is especially true in the face of continued >>opposition to biopharming from the Grocery Manufacturers Association >>of America, which represents food, beverage and consumer products >>companies with combined U.S. sales of $460 billion. >> >>Ventria hopes to add its protein powder to existing infant products. >>There is no requirement to label any food products in the United >>States as containing genetically engineered ingredients. >> >>The company also has ambitious plans to add its product to infant >>formula, a $10 billion-a-year market, even though the major food >>manufacturers have so far shown little interest in using genetically >>engineered ingredients. But Deeter says Ventria can win over the >>manufacturers and consumers by showing the company's products are >>beneficial. >> >>"For children who are weaning, for instance, these two proteins have >>enormous potential to help their development," >> >>Copyright 2006 The Associated Press >> >>Return to Table of Contents >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment & >> Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are >> often considered separately or not at all. >> >> The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining >> because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who >> bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human >> health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the >> rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among >> workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, >> intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and >> therefore ruled by the few. >> >> In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who >> gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what >> might be done about it?" >> >> As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots, >> please Email them to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as >> necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the >> subject. >> >> Editors: >> Peter Montague - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Tim Montague - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy >> & Health News send a blank Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that >> you want to subscribe. >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >>Environmental Research Foundation >> >>P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> >> >>--- >> >>You are currently subscribed to rachel as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
