PRESS RELEASES
For Immediate Release
[January 31, 2008 Mount Vernon, Wash.] – The January 30th edition of the Seattle P-I carried a front page story by Senior Correspondent Andrew Schneider, on a yearlong, peer-reviewed study conducted by Chenshen Lu, published online in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. The study tested kids from ages 3-11, from two elementary schools and a Montessori pre-school on Mercer Island. It found that the saliva and urine in these children, who ate a variety of conventional food from area groceries, contained biological markers of brain-damaging organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.
Chlorpyrifos, made by Dow Chemical Co., is one of the most widely used
organophosphate insecticides in the United States and around the world. A recent animal study demonstrated that persistent cognitive impairment occurred in rats after chronic dietary exposure to chlorpyrifos.
“There’s a large underpinning of animal research for organophosphate pesticides, and particularly for chlorpyrifos, that points to bad outcomes in terms of effects on brain development and behavior,” says Dr. Theodore Slotkin, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University in North Carolina.
The EPA says that it has eliminated the use of organophosphates on many crops, and imposed restrictions on remaining pesticide uses.
“It’s appropriate to assume that if we – human beings – are exposed to (this class of) pesticides, even though it’s a low-level exposure on a daily basis, there are going to be some health concerns down the road,” said Lu, who is on the EPA’s pesticide advisory panel.
When the children in the study switched to organic foods, the pesticide measurement levels in urine disappeared. The level returned immediately when they went back on conventional diets.
“Research into organic foods and farming methods continues to demonstrate increased health factors,” said Jodie Buller, outreach coordinator for the Skagit Valley Food Co-op in Mount Vernon, Wash., “The more we learn about chemicals used on conventionally grown foods, the scarier the health reality becomes. The more we learn about organics, however, the more we learn how supportive they are to health and function of the mind and the body. This is especially true for kids at critical developmental stages, who need all the help they can get.”
Recent tests of organically grown foods show increased levels of antioxidants, according a recent State of Science Review (SSR). Dr. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., compiled and analyzed existing scientific information for his report, Elevating Antioxidant Levels Through Organic Farming and Food Processing. The report reveals that on average, antioxidant levels were about 30 percent higher in organic food compared to conventional food grown under the same conditions.
Because of the many potential health benefits associated with antioxidant consumption, increasing average daily antioxidant intake through the diet has emerged as an important health goal," says Benbrook. "This goal was a major factor shaping the new USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which increase the average recommended intake of fruits and vegetables to at least nine servings per day from the original five. By generating higher concentrations of antioxidants in fresh produce and other organic foods, organic farming can help people increase their daily consumption of antioxidants without a proportional increase in calories."
This report reviews, among other data, 15 quantitative comparisons of antioxidant levels in organic versus conventional fruit and vegetables. Organically grown produce had higher levels in 13 out of 15 cases. On average, the organic crops contained about one-third higher antioxidant and/or phenolic content than comparable conventional produce. Several studies found levels of specific vitamins, flavonoids or antioxidants in organic foods to be two or three times the level found in matched samples of conventional foods. In studies making direct comparisons of levels of antioxidants in organic versus conventional produce, higher levels are often found in organic produce but the converse is rarely true.
A wide range of factors can influence the mix of antioxidants that a plant manufactures, as well as the levels the plant produces at any given point. In general, factors that impose stress on plants tend to trigger a plant's innate defense mechanisms and these mechanisms are driven by and/or entail the synthesis of antioxidants.
Studies reviewed in the SSR provide evidence that several core practices on organic fruit and vegetable farms (use of compost, cover crops, slow release forms of nitrogen) can increase antioxidant and polyphenol content compared to conventional practices that depend on commercial fertilizers and pesticides. The prohibition of pesticides in organic farming practices provides additional benefits to consumers who choose organic.
[January 31, 2008 Mount Vernon, Wash.] – The January 30th edition of the Seattle P-I carried a front page story by Senior Correspondent Andrew Schneider, on a yearlong, peer-reviewed study conducted by Chenshen Lu, published online in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. The study tested kids from ages 3-11, from two elementary schools and a Montessori pre-school on Mercer Island. It found that the saliva and urine in these children, who ate a variety of conventional food from area groceries, contained biological markers of brain-damaging organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.
Chlorpyrifos, made by Dow Chemical Co., is one of the most widely used
organophosphate insecticides in the United States and around the world. A recent animal study demonstrated that persistent cognitive impairment occurred in rats after chronic dietary exposure to chlorpyrifos.
“There’s a large underpinning of animal research for organophosphate pesticides, and particularly for chlorpyrifos, that points to bad outcomes in terms of effects on brain development and behavior,” says Dr. Theodore Slotkin, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University in North Carolina.
The EPA says that it has eliminated the use of organophosphates on many crops, and imposed restrictions on remaining pesticide uses.
“It’s appropriate to assume that if we – human beings – are exposed to (this class of) pesticides, even though it’s a low-level exposure on a daily basis, there are going to be some health concerns down the road,” said Lu, who is on the EPA’s pesticide advisory panel.
When the children in the study switched to organic foods, the pesticide measurement levels in urine disappeared. The level returned immediately when they went back on conventional diets.
“Research into organic foods and farming methods continues to demonstrate increased health factors,” said Jodie Buller, outreach coordinator for the Skagit Valley Food Co-op in Mount Vernon, Wash., “The more we learn about chemicals used on conventionally grown foods, the scarier the health reality becomes. The more we learn about organics, however, the more we learn how supportive they are to health and function of the mind and the body. This is especially true for kids at critical developmental stages, who need all the help they can get.”
Recent tests of organically grown foods show increased levels of antioxidants, according a recent State of Science Review (SSR). Dr. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., compiled and analyzed existing scientific information for his report, Elevating Antioxidant Levels Through Organic Farming and Food Processing. The report reveals that on average, antioxidant levels were about 30 percent higher in organic food compared to conventional food grown under the same conditions.
Because of the many potential health benefits associated with antioxidant consumption, increasing average daily antioxidant intake through the diet has emerged as an important health goal," says Benbrook. "This goal was a major factor shaping the new USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which increase the average recommended intake of fruits and vegetables to at least nine servings per day from the original five. By generating higher concentrations of antioxidants in fresh produce and other organic foods, organic farming can help people increase their daily consumption of antioxidants without a proportional increase in calories."
This report reviews, among other data, 15 quantitative comparisons of antioxidant levels in organic versus conventional fruit and vegetables. Organically grown produce had higher levels in 13 out of 15 cases. On average, the organic crops contained about one-third higher antioxidant and/or phenolic content than comparable conventional produce. Several studies found levels of specific vitamins, flavonoids or antioxidants in organic foods to be two or three times the level found in matched samples of conventional foods. In studies making direct comparisons of levels of antioxidants in organic versus conventional produce, higher levels are often found in organic produce but the converse is rarely true.
A wide range of factors can influence the mix of antioxidants that a plant manufactures, as well as the levels the plant produces at any given point. In general, factors that impose stress on plants tend to trigger a plant's innate defense mechanisms and these mechanisms are driven by and/or entail the synthesis of antioxidants.
Studies reviewed in the SSR provide evidence that several core practices on organic fruit and vegetable farms (use of compost, cover crops, slow release forms of nitrogen) can increase antioxidant and polyphenol content compared to conventional practices that depend on commercial fertilizers and pesticides. The prohibition of pesticides in organic farming practices provides additional benefits to consumers who choose organic.
Contact: Jodie Buller
(360) 336-5087x136
For Immediate Release
Radiation is broadly defined as energy moving through space in invisible waves. Radiant energy has differing wavelengths and degrees of power. The radiation of interest in food preservation is ionizing radiation, also known as irradiation. These shorter wavelengths are capable of damaging microorganisms such as those that contaminate food or cause food spoilage and deterioration. That capability, plus the fact that much of our food supply is lost due to spoilage and insects each year is why scientists have been experimenting with irradiation as a method of food preservation since 1950.
Irradiation has been approved for many uses in about 36 countries, but only a few applications are presently used because of consumer concern and because the facilities are expensive to build. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved irradiation for eliminating insects from wheat, potatoes, flour, spices, tea, fruits, and vegetables. Irradiation also can be used to control sprouting and ripening. Approval was given in 1985 to use irradiation on pork to control trichinosis. Using irradiation to control Salmonella and other harmful bacteria in chicken, turkey, and other fresh and frozen uncooked poultry was approved in May 1990. Current FDA irradiation projects include Raw Almonds, Raw Greens, and Supplements.
Masks the Unsanitary Condition of Factory FarmsIrradiation is an after the fact "solution" that does nothing to address the unsanitary conditions of factory farms, and actually creates a disincentive for producers and handlers to take preventative steps in production in handling. The longer shelf life created by irradiation (affording longer shipping distances) also provides greater opportunity for post-treatment contamination via shipping, handling, etc. Additionally, irradiation does not work to stop toxins produced by some bacteria (like botulism); viruses, like foot and mouth disease or hepatitis, are resistant to the irradiation doses used in food; and prions (thought to be the cause of BSE, or Mad Cow disease) are resistant as well.
Contributes to Consolidation of Agriculture Industry and Globalization of FoodThe motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food. This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards. As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs. In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets. This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms - further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply.
In 1986, the Skagit Valley Food Co-op Board of Trustees passed a policy stating that the Mount Vernon Co-op will not knowingly sell any food that has been irradiated, “We felt that we could not support this reckless endangerment to our food supply” said Todd Wood, the Co-op’s General Manager. Until recently, the “radura” symbol on all irradiated food made that policy possible to enforce. In July of 2007 however, the FDA proposed a new rule to allow labeling of irradiated foods using the terms “electronically pasteurized” or “cold pasteurized”. Labeling irradiated foods as "pasteurized" is simply untruthful and misleading. Pasteurization involves heating liquids for the purpose of destroying harmful bacteria and other pathogens, and has been used safely for decades. Using high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays on foods - is a completely different process than pasteurization.
Radiation can do strange things to food, by creating substances called "unique radiolytic products." These irradiation byproducts include a variety of mutagens - substances that can cause gene mutations, polyploidy (an abnormal condition in which cells contain more than two sets of chromosomes), chromosome aberrations (often associated with cancerous cells), and dominant lethal mutations (a change in a cell that prevents it from reproducing) in human cells. Making matters worse, many mutagens are also carcinogens.
All food processing, including irradiation, results in some nutrient loss. Irradiated foods can lose from 2-95% of their vitamins. Irradiation breaks the bonds of fats, including omega-3 fatty acids, and doubles the amount of trans fats in beef. Irradiation also decreases vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects the polyunsaturated “good” fats, which protect the heart.
The food to be irradiated will often already be in its final package. This raises the question about whether the irradiation has any effect on the packaging that might be transferred to the foods. Many modern packaging materials have simply not been tested.
--Proper handling of dietary supplements under current good manufacturing practice is usually sufficient to ensure that they are not subject to microbial contamination that presents any risk to the health of consumers of these products.
--If approved, the use of ionizing irradiation on herbal dietary ingredients will mask one of the factors that is currently relevant to the determination of ingredient quality, since information about microbial levels and the presence of pathogens or yeasts and molds at any time during the handling of a treated ingredient would be lost.
--Proposed irradiation limits for dietary supplements are at 30kGY: 3 to 30 times higher than current allowances for all but two approved food categories. Dietary supplements may be consumed in quantities of several grams per day. Thus, dietary supplement consumers will be exposed to significantly higher levels of any material changes that occur in a supplement’s or ingredient’s characteristics or in its consequences of use, if any, as a result of the irradiation.
Sources for this article:
1. From Idaho State University’s Food Irradiation webpage
2. From http://www.centerforfoodsafety.com3. From http://www.citizen.org, FAQs with Registered Dietician Karen Graham
(360) 336-5087x136
For Immediate Release
The FDA Push to Irradiate Extends to Supplements, Despite Ongoing Concerns
Radiation is broadly defined as energy moving through space in invisible waves. Radiant energy has differing wavelengths and degrees of power. The radiation of interest in food preservation is ionizing radiation, also known as irradiation. These shorter wavelengths are capable of damaging microorganisms such as those that contaminate food or cause food spoilage and deterioration. That capability, plus the fact that much of our food supply is lost due to spoilage and insects each year is why scientists have been experimenting with irradiation as a method of food preservation since 1950.
Irradiation has been approved for many uses in about 36 countries, but only a few applications are presently used because of consumer concern and because the facilities are expensive to build. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved irradiation for eliminating insects from wheat, potatoes, flour, spices, tea, fruits, and vegetables. Irradiation also can be used to control sprouting and ripening. Approval was given in 1985 to use irradiation on pork to control trichinosis. Using irradiation to control Salmonella and other harmful bacteria in chicken, turkey, and other fresh and frozen uncooked poultry was approved in May 1990. Current FDA irradiation projects include Raw Almonds, Raw Greens, and Supplements.
Irradiation is Not the Solution to Food-Borne Illness
Using recent food-contamination scandals as a springboard, irradiation has been touted as the solution to food-borne illness in everything from spinach to deli meats. But government agencies have yet to take a good, hard look at the systemic food and agricultural problems that cause these tragic outbreaks in the first place.Masks the Unsanitary Condition of Factory FarmsIrradiation is an after the fact "solution" that does nothing to address the unsanitary conditions of factory farms, and actually creates a disincentive for producers and handlers to take preventative steps in production in handling. The longer shelf life created by irradiation (affording longer shipping distances) also provides greater opportunity for post-treatment contamination via shipping, handling, etc. Additionally, irradiation does not work to stop toxins produced by some bacteria (like botulism); viruses, like foot and mouth disease or hepatitis, are resistant to the irradiation doses used in food; and prions (thought to be the cause of BSE, or Mad Cow disease) are resistant as well.
Contributes to Consolidation of Agriculture Industry and Globalization of FoodThe motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food. This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards. As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs. In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets. This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms - further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply.
Labeling of Irradiated Foods
In 1986, the Skagit Valley Food Co-op Board of Trustees passed a policy stating that the Mount Vernon Co-op will not knowingly sell any food that has been irradiated, “We felt that we could not support this reckless endangerment to our food supply” said Todd Wood, the Co-op’s General Manager. Until recently, the “radura” symbol on all irradiated food made that policy possible to enforce. In July of 2007 however, the FDA proposed a new rule to allow labeling of irradiated foods using the terms “electronically pasteurized” or “cold pasteurized”. Labeling irradiated foods as "pasteurized" is simply untruthful and misleading. Pasteurization involves heating liquids for the purpose of destroying harmful bacteria and other pathogens, and has been used safely for decades. Using high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays on foods - is a completely different process than pasteurization.
Radiation can do strange things to food, by creating substances called "unique radiolytic products." These irradiation byproducts include a variety of mutagens - substances that can cause gene mutations, polyploidy (an abnormal condition in which cells contain more than two sets of chromosomes), chromosome aberrations (often associated with cancerous cells), and dominant lethal mutations (a change in a cell that prevents it from reproducing) in human cells. Making matters worse, many mutagens are also carcinogens.
All food processing, including irradiation, results in some nutrient loss. Irradiated foods can lose from 2-95% of their vitamins. Irradiation breaks the bonds of fats, including omega-3 fatty acids, and doubles the amount of trans fats in beef. Irradiation also decreases vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects the polyunsaturated “good” fats, which protect the heart.
The food to be irradiated will often already be in its final package. This raises the question about whether the irradiation has any effect on the packaging that might be transferred to the foods. Many modern packaging materials have simply not been tested.
Citizens For Health, an online consumer watchdog group, is advocating against irradiation of supplements, for these reasons:
--Proper handling of dietary supplements under current good manufacturing practice is usually sufficient to ensure that they are not subject to microbial contamination that presents any risk to the health of consumers of these products.
--If approved, the use of ionizing irradiation on herbal dietary ingredients will mask one of the factors that is currently relevant to the determination of ingredient quality, since information about microbial levels and the presence of pathogens or yeasts and molds at any time during the handling of a treated ingredient would be lost.
--Proposed irradiation limits for dietary supplements are at 30kGY: 3 to 30 times higher than current allowances for all but two approved food categories. Dietary supplements may be consumed in quantities of several grams per day. Thus, dietary supplement consumers will be exposed to significantly higher levels of any material changes that occur in a supplement’s or ingredient’s characteristics or in its consequences of use, if any, as a result of the irradiation.
Sources for this article:
1. From Idaho State University’s Food Irradiation webpage
2. From http://www.centerforfoodsafety.com3. From http://www.citizen.org, FAQs with Registered Dietician Karen Graham
December 27, 2007
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jodie Buller
(360) 336-5087
(Mount Vernon, WA) After seven years of keeping sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets out of their food, Kellogg, Hershey's and the Wyoming based American Crystal Sugar say that they will now starting using sugar made from (GE) beets.
The decision marks a turnaround for Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar producer, which declared in May of this year that it had no plans to use GE sugar beets, and indicated that herbicide-resistant varieties developed using biotechnology would not "be sold, given away, distributed, or planted in year 2007." They did not however, mention the year 2008 and beyond.
Now, according to a recent article in the New York Times, the food giants have softened to the idea because public resistance to GE foods seems to have faded. They now support the introduction because it will increase yields and, unlike other GE foods, GE beet sugar will allegedly have no genetically engineered strands of altered DNA or proteins left in it by the time it’s processed into sugar. Essentially, the GE beet creates the same sucrose as an everyday sugar beet. This has been an important distinction for the industry as a way to assuage consumer concerns and expand the sugar beet market, which is the source for about half of American sugar.
Produced by Monsanto, GE beets are also called Roundup Ready Beets because their DNA has been altered to survive applications of Roundup weed-killer. The glyphosate based herbicide Roundup is widely used to kill weeds, but is strong enough to kill crops. A genetically engineered beet is resistant to Roundup, allowing farmers to kill the weeds and keep the beets.
But the health risks of glyphosate are poorly understood. Some studies have connected glyphosate exposure to cancer, organ damage in animals, human reproduction and fetal development. Glyphosate has also created super-weeds, resistant to the herbicide much like humans are becoming resistant to some antibiotics.
While the ecological and health issues are debated, the often overlooked factor in the increasing use of GM seed and food is that it gives Monsanto a great deal of control over the production of food. A handful of corporations like Monsanto are involved in agricultural biotechnology. Their products of genetically modified corn, soybeans and sugar beets are then patented much like the work of other inventors in order to limit the way seeds can be used and distributed. Biotech patents have been controversial however because the companies are patenting biology, DNA, the basic structure of life and then claiming it as their invention in order to sell it.
While organizations like the Organic Consumers Organization’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign against biotechnology, Monsanto continues to develop new seed technologies. As it expands the number of patents it has on those technologies it will also expand its power to sue individual producers and control the market. In doing so, Vandana Shiva, a physicist, farmers’ rights activist and author of Monocultures of the Mind argues that farmers and ranchers using GM seeds will continue to find themselves limited by GM seed rather than enabled by it. As she writes, “Corporate strategies and products can lead to diversification of commodities; they cannot enrich nature’s diversity.”
Genetically modified beets have already been grown on 300 acres in Idaho during test trials for Monsanto and another 2,200 acres in Wyoming’s Big Horn Basin. While sugar beet farmers await the outcome of these trials and the products full release next year, the sugar industry is keeping a low profile about their use of GM beets in order to reduce the chance of a public outcry according to the New York Times. To further protect its interests, Monsanto recently hired Parven Pomper Schulyer Inc. to lobby the federal government on agriculture, trade and tax issues. With this effort and continued growth in GM foods, Monsanto “expects to double the gross profit potential of business from the end of 2007 through 2012.”
(Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel - New West Network)
For more information on issues related to GMO and US and International food production, visit
http://www.thecampaign.org
and
http://www.organicconsumers.org
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jodie Buller
(360) 336-5087
And the Beet Goes On
(Mount Vernon, WA) After seven years of keeping sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets out of their food, Kellogg, Hershey's and the Wyoming based American Crystal Sugar say that they will now starting using sugar made from (GE) beets.
The decision marks a turnaround for Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar producer, which declared in May of this year that it had no plans to use GE sugar beets, and indicated that herbicide-resistant varieties developed using biotechnology would not "be sold, given away, distributed, or planted in year 2007." They did not however, mention the year 2008 and beyond.
Now, according to a recent article in the New York Times, the food giants have softened to the idea because public resistance to GE foods seems to have faded. They now support the introduction because it will increase yields and, unlike other GE foods, GE beet sugar will allegedly have no genetically engineered strands of altered DNA or proteins left in it by the time it’s processed into sugar. Essentially, the GE beet creates the same sucrose as an everyday sugar beet. This has been an important distinction for the industry as a way to assuage consumer concerns and expand the sugar beet market, which is the source for about half of American sugar.
Produced by Monsanto, GE beets are also called Roundup Ready Beets because their DNA has been altered to survive applications of Roundup weed-killer. The glyphosate based herbicide Roundup is widely used to kill weeds, but is strong enough to kill crops. A genetically engineered beet is resistant to Roundup, allowing farmers to kill the weeds and keep the beets.
But the health risks of glyphosate are poorly understood. Some studies have connected glyphosate exposure to cancer, organ damage in animals, human reproduction and fetal development. Glyphosate has also created super-weeds, resistant to the herbicide much like humans are becoming resistant to some antibiotics.
While the ecological and health issues are debated, the often overlooked factor in the increasing use of GM seed and food is that it gives Monsanto a great deal of control over the production of food. A handful of corporations like Monsanto are involved in agricultural biotechnology. Their products of genetically modified corn, soybeans and sugar beets are then patented much like the work of other inventors in order to limit the way seeds can be used and distributed. Biotech patents have been controversial however because the companies are patenting biology, DNA, the basic structure of life and then claiming it as their invention in order to sell it.
While organizations like the Organic Consumers Organization’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign against biotechnology, Monsanto continues to develop new seed technologies. As it expands the number of patents it has on those technologies it will also expand its power to sue individual producers and control the market. In doing so, Vandana Shiva, a physicist, farmers’ rights activist and author of Monocultures of the Mind argues that farmers and ranchers using GM seeds will continue to find themselves limited by GM seed rather than enabled by it. As she writes, “Corporate strategies and products can lead to diversification of commodities; they cannot enrich nature’s diversity.”
Genetically modified beets have already been grown on 300 acres in Idaho during test trials for Monsanto and another 2,200 acres in Wyoming’s Big Horn Basin. While sugar beet farmers await the outcome of these trials and the products full release next year, the sugar industry is keeping a low profile about their use of GM beets in order to reduce the chance of a public outcry according to the New York Times. To further protect its interests, Monsanto recently hired Parven Pomper Schulyer Inc. to lobby the federal government on agriculture, trade and tax issues. With this effort and continued growth in GM foods, Monsanto “expects to double the gross profit potential of business from the end of 2007 through 2012.”
(Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel - New West Network)
For more information on issues related to GMO and US and International food production, visit
http://www.thecampaign.org
and
http://www.organicconsumers.org
