How to become absolutely FREE…


 

Learn how to build a debt-free home with no mortgage to worry over. 

Picture this: You, sipping lemonade, relaxing in the living room of the home you built yourself. It’s taken the better part of three years, but you own the house free and clear. No mortgage company has their hands on your home.

Sound impossible? Are you convinced you haven’t got the talent to build your own home? I’m here to remove those misconceptions. You can achieve your dream of home ownership by learning how to build a debt-free home yourself. I did. Hundreds of other people I know have done the same thing. They directed their ambition and took charge of their lives and destiny.

Consider this: A residential mortgage will amount to as much as three times the purchase price of a house over the life of the payment schedule. A $100,000 house would cost more than $314,000 at 10 percent interest amortized over 30 years. The monthly mortgage payment can amount to as much as half your regular income. What would you do with an extra $873 every month? Another important reason for building your own home is the family. Building your family home will bring a family closer together in ways you wouldn’t dream possible. The greatest reward is each family member recognizes their contribution made a difference, providing self-esteem that will last a lifetime.

I can practically hear your reaction now: I can’t possibly build a home. I know some carpentry, but I know nothing about electrical or plumbing or roofing. To these concerns, I would say: Reach inside yourself for the strength that will sustain the pursuit of your objective and go for it. My family and I did, and here’s how:

In 1992 I unexpectedly lost my job and nearly lost my home to a mortgage company. My wife, Cyndi, and I agreed we never wanted even to approach that fate again. We resolved to build a home, paycheck by paycheck, without a mortgage. If we could live on the property, we could spend the equivalent of a mortgage payment on building materials each month. We explained the decision to our two children and sought their commitment, as well. At the time our son, Darius, was 10, and our daughter, Cassandra, was only 7. I remember her big, round eyes looking up, asking if she would have her own bedroom.

The whole family began the project with enthusiasm. My wife knew construction was in my soul, and even though she felt overwhelmed by the project, she expressed excitement and optimism. This early commitment was essential to the success of the project. My son always echoed our motivation when, for instance, we’d pass up first-run movies or dinner in a nice restaurant. “We need to save money for building materials; let’s wait till we’re finished building,” he’d say. Big words and big concepts for a preteen, and his focus on our goal kept us inspired.

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/build-a-debt-free-home-zmaz02fmzgoe.aspx#ixzz2cW3nPp1F

Why does Organic Cost More??


 

Joel Salatin on why Organic and Local food can cost more: 

 

Many local and real food advocates chafe under commonly higher prices, not realizing that in fact, much of this higher price does not end up in the farmer’s pocket. It is rather siphoned off as regulatory expense to comply with asinine government regulations that either do not scale down to smaller producers and producers, or are outright capricious and inapplicable.

Last year, here at Polyface we entered the mandatory Workman’s Compensation (WC) world when we passed our third employee. This is a state mandated program administered by a private company. I’m not sure about all the arrangements, but there’s virtually no competition. After our insurance agent filled out all the paperwork he could, he set up a three-way phone interview so I could finish the loose ends. “Only 15 minutes,” he assured me. It took an hour and the questions were outrageous when applied to us.

Our interns and apprentices, who receive free room and board plus a modest stipend in return for their education, had to be treated like employees. On our farm, we integrate cattle, pigs, and poultry to such an extent that these different types of animals are in the same area and everyone handles chores for all of them. But in WC land, employees must be segregated between “Beef and Pork” or “Poultry.” They can’t mix. The risk actuarials are different so they must be separately categorized.

Of course, the risk to for cattle and hogs is bigger because they can hurt you, especially in a feedlot or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. We have neither. And poultry risk is assessed assuming a confinement fecal particulate fan whirring feed augering factory house. Ours are in little squatty pasture schooners, hand watered, hand fed, open air sunshine and dew-speckled pasture.

The real kicker was a delivery driver who takes frozen meat and eggs to the restaurants and home customers. Since we’re a farm, we can’t have such a delivery driver. The only delivery driver we can have is a live animal hauler–highest risk in the book. If we were a delivery service, we could have a low-risk delivery driver, but that’s impossible with a farm. Farms don’t have those kinds of employees.

 

 

Bottom line: our little farm operation is paying more than $10,000 a year for government-mandated Workman’s Comp using an assessment system written for Tyson and Cargill. It’s absurd. And immoral. Guess who pays that huge cost? The customer. In a thousand different ways, this scenario plays out across the local food movement, arbitrarily and capriciously prejudicing the price. And that, dear friends, is the main reason why local food is more expensive.

Happier Cows Taste Better…


 

Compassionately Raised Meats and Poultry

 

By Sally Deneen

 

 

If you took a guess, would you say that caged chickens in the egg industry are never able to: A) Spread their wings; B) Walk around; C) Lay eggs in a nest; or D) All of the above.

The answer, says the Humane Society of the United States, is D. More than 90 percent of nation’s egg-laying hens live in so-called “battery cages” and never touch the ground or go outdoors. Meanwhile, HSUS says, six million breeding female pigs and a million calves raised for veal spend practically their whole lives in crates too small for the animals to turn around. In short, the mental picture of a bucolic farm with rolling hills dotted with happy cows is passé. It doesn’t apply to today’s industrialized farms.

Wouldn’t it be great if farm animals were raised compassionately? Well, some people are way ahead of you on that. Whole Foods Markets has decided to come up with standards to create a line of meats bearing an “animal compassionate” label, meaning farmers raised the animals humanely. It’s not the first animal-welfare label out there. There’s also the “certified humane” label administered by Humane Farm Animal Care, and the “free farmed” label overseen by the American Humane Association. And the Animal Welfare Institute issues the label “Animal Welfare Approved.”

All aim for humane lives for farm animals, though each program is different. Examples: The New York Times pointed out that the Animal Welfare Institute and the “free farmed” label let pigs have nose rings to prevent them from tearing up the ground when they root around, but the other programs forbid rings. At AnimalWelfareApproved.org, the Animal Welfare Institute posts a comparison chart showing how it’s the most favorable program.

The nonprofit watchdog group Consumers Union so far has examined only the “certified humane” label, which it deemed a “highly meaningful label that indicates that meat, dairy and egg products came from animals that were treated humanely,” according to its eco-oriented web site, Eco-labels.org. The “certified humane” label has several requirements. Among examples: Livestock must have access to clean and sufficient food and water; they must have sufficient room to move naturally; and their environment must not endanger their health.

In the end, the vast majority of livestock don’t fall under any of these humane-labeling programs, and you may achieve your goal of buying humanely raised meats via other routes — by buying from farmers markets or small local farms. Another way: Quiz local co-ops about what they know about how their meats were produced.

For more info:

To find out where to buy “Certified Humane” foods, go to CertifiedHumane.com. To find Animal Welfare-approved foods, go to www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org. To find “Free Farmed” producers, go to AmericanHumane.org.

Check out the film or book “Fast Food Nation” by Eric Schlosser for an interesting examination of the fast-food industry. To download the first chapter of Michael Pollan’s worthwhile book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” go to www.michaelpollan.com

 

Source: http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Compassionately-Raised-Meats-Poultry

Read more: Compassionately Raised Meats and Poultry – Free Farmed and Certified Humane Livestock – The Daily Green

 

Visit us at TheDailyGreen.com

GMO Myth vs. Fact: Let’s set the record straight.


 

Myth: The FDA Conducts Safety Tests of All GM Foods

You might think the FDA thoroughly tests genetically modified foods to make sure they are safe. In fact, the FDA doesn’t test them at all.

Instead, says Consumer Union’s Jean Halloran, it takes the word of the companies that develop the foods.

 “When a company comes in with data, the FDA looks at it and writes a letter saying, “Dear Monsanto, you supplied information regarding the safety of corn variety X and we are confident about what you’ve shown,” Halloran says. “It is your responsibility.”

Monsanto is the world’s largest developer of GM foods.

 

Myth: Genetically Modified Foods Are Easy to Spot

If you’ve been scanning food labels to check whether you’re about to buy products containing GM foods, you’re wasting your time.

The FDA decided more than a decade ago that GM foods do not have to be labeled. So there’s no easy way to tell whether a particular packaged food is made with GM crops.

 

Myth: You Aren’t Eating Genetically Modified Foods Right Now

Think your shopping cart is free of GM foods? Think again. According to WebMD, only 26 percent of Americans believe they have eaten genetically modified foods.

The reality is almost all have. Up to 70 percent of food in the grocery store has some genetically modified material in it, says WebMD.

The most common staples are soy and corn. That means corn syrup sweetened sodas, cereals and snacks probably have genetically modified material in it.

When it comes to animal products, so far there aren’t any genetically modified animals on the market – no pork, beef, chicken, etc.

Be a STICKLER For the Facts: The truth about PLU codes.


 

 

The persistently shared urban legend of the mysterious PLU sticker on fresh produce that indicates whether or not the fruit or veggie is GMO is a legend that NEEDs to be put to rest.  Above is our handy dandy little graphic that proves THERE IS NO #8 sticker that says that it’s GMO.  It’s a farce. The only commercialized GMO crops you have to worry about are easy to spot:  CORN, CANOLA, SOY, COTTON, a small amount of Zucchini and Yellow Crook Neck Squash, and Hawaiian Papaya.  Did I leave anything out?  And anything in a box or a can or jar that is highly processed has a very high likelihood of containing GMO ingredients… so whole foods are always best!   Learn more about how to spot and avoid GMOs Here.

-Mary 

Corbin Hill Food Project Annual Farm Trip

 

This is the CSA that I am a member of.  They had their annual farm trip and from the pic above, IT WENT VERY WELL… AS YOU CAN SEE!

Here is a list of the Farms and Farmers that they source their produce from each week.

Want to know more about the farm share?  Here is a list of FAQ from Corbin Hill’s sight.

If you live in an NYC “food desert” and need access to local fresh fruits and veggies, you can sign up for a Corbin Hill Farm Share Here.

Here’s to finding Healthy Food!

Would you believe your “wholesome organic milk” really comes from an industrial CAFO? If you buy Dean Food’s Horizon Brand… It does.

Image

Why do we buy Organic?  

Most Organic food enthusiasts make the choice based on any number of things; it may be that we are concerned for the environment and ethical treatment of animals, as well as the obvious reasons of less toxic chemicals and GMOs in our food.  

We all know organic is more expensive, but cost comes down to the bottom of the list, because we are willing to pay companies to do business more ethically and to sell us healthier, cleaner food.  

But what happens when your Organic brand is cheating you?   What if Organic brands are passing off their products as one thing,  when they are about as conventional as AG can get, but they squeezed by just enough to slap a USDA Organic label on it.  Would you still shell out the big bucks?  We don’t think so.  We think it would make Organic buyers mad to know the conditions in which the cheater’s “Organic” Cows live.  You wouldn’t knowingly buy organic milk if you knew it was coming from an Industrial style CAFO, would you?  How do you tell the good guys from the cheaters, so you know where to spend your money?

Well, Luckily, there’s the Cornucopia Institute.  They have the Organic Dairy Scorecard that helpfully rates organic dairies on a scale of COWS… FIVE cows being to best (imagine happy grass munching cows roaming green pastures) to ZERO cows being the worst(an industrial style CAFO like Dean Foods passes off as Horizon Organics).  Here is food for thought- Would Dean Foods allow us to roll up into their dairy operation unannounced to document their strict adherence to the USDA Organic Standards?  They did not even bother to participate in Cornucopia’s Dairy Scorecard.  That’s very telling.  Just remember, If you’re not allowed go to where your food comes from to see how it’s grown or produced, you may not want to eat it.  

-Mary @gmo free new york

From the Cornucopia Institute:

August 22nd, 2013

By Will Fantle

After a formal request, from The Cornucopia Institute, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has spent the last couple of years focusing on the question of whether certified organic dairy farms are following the federal organic standards.  An additional focus of their research has been to determine if the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is properly enforcing the law.

Two separate and previous audit reports have revealed a number of problems with the NOP’s oversight.  And this time, very regrettably, the OIG missed the opportunity to investigate alleged wholesale improprieties that have radically shifted the composition of the organic dairy industry.

“If you want to find the major improprieties, that have shifted market share away from ethical farmers and damaging their livelihoods, you need to visit the scene of the crimes.” – Mark Kastel

The Cornucopia Institute, recalls Cofounder Mark Kastel, was founded nearly 10 years ago, in part, to address two giant CAFOs (with 4500 and 10,000-cows, respectively) that were producing “organic” milk for Horizon Dairy.  This occurred right at the juncture when the principals of Horizon sold the enterprise to the largest milk bottler in the nation, Dean Foods.

The millionaire entrepreneurs who started Horizon subsequently announced the formation of Aurora Dairy, a company that has now built or converted six CAFOs and is the dominant supplier of private-label organic milk in the US.  Their stated goal at the time was to, “make organic milk more affordable.”

During the Bush administration, political appointees and bureaucrats at the NOP ignored the exponential growth of CAFOs production (now well over 20 operating “organically” and producing a substantial percentage of the nation’s organic milk production).  They resisted taking enforcement action and claimed that the standards were inadequate and asked the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to promulgate new rules.

Although they never inspected/investigated Dean/Horizon’s flagship operation in Paul, Idaho (at the time milking approximately over 4000 cows) they did find Aurora in “willful” violation of the existing law.  Aurora, recommended for decertification by career staff at the USDA, was eventually allowed to continue operating under a one-year probation and required to make some modifications to their operations.

From the first time the NOSB passed a resolution to help rein-in abuses on factory dairies it would take 10 years for the USDA to enact new rules.  Cornucopia asked the OIG to investigate whether or not, after stakeholders went through years of effort working with the NOSB, if the USDA was now adequately enforcing the law.

Even though it was clear from Cornucopia’s original request and conversations with OIG staff that the focus of their investigation should be on giant CAFOs with a history of skirting the law (located in Colorado, Texas, New Mexico and Idaho), they instead focused the majority of their resources on farms in the leading dairy states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, and belatedly, California.  These states have mostly smaller, family-scale operations with little historical evidence of wholesale improprieties.

Notes Kastel:  “Jesse Jackson once said, ‘If you want the right answers you have to ask the right questions.’  In this case, if you wanted to find the major improprieties, that have shifted market share away from ethical farmers and damaging their livelihoods, you needed to visit the scene of the crimes.”

Not surprisingly, the OIG’s audit found that the USDA has “successfully implemented the access to pasture rule as part of its National Organic Program.”

“After waiting years for the USDA Office of Inspector General to complete their investigation and report, we continue to lack confidence that the National Organic Program, under the Obama/Vilsack administration, is judiciously enforcing the requirement that organic livestock have access to the outdoors and that ruminants have access to pasture,” Kastel said.

The OIG also examined another long-simmering controversy in organic dairying – the movement of conventional cows onto organic dairies.  The intent of the federal organic standards is clear.  Once a conventional dairy farm converts a “distinct herd” of cattle to organic management all animals subsequently brought onto their farm must have been raised organically from the last third of gestation.

But due to some grammatical awkwardness in the regulation, giant CAFO operators, and their lawyers, asked the USDA during the Bush administration to allow them to continue to bring in conventional cattle, “converted to organic,” on a continuing basis.

It was a path to lower production costs – not having to manage newborn calves organically until they reach milking age (a more expensive proposition) and accommodating the need of factory dairies to further grow their operations or replace the cattle that they burn out from high-production management practices.

Family-scale organic operators, and even larger dairies that operate ethically, or members of organizations like the Organic Valley cooperative that require all cattle on the farm to be truly organic, are being placed at a competitive disadvantage by the practice.

Miles McEvoy, current NOP director, publicly stated in 2010 that they would correct this problem through rulemaking.  He called it a “priority” and that a draft rule would be out by the end of 2010.  Like the Bush administration before them, they are now engaged in an exercise of “running the clock out.”  The delays continue helping large corporate investors economically crush organic family farmers.

The OIG audit states that there is a gross inequity currently taking place.  Some ethical certifiers are enforcing the standards, as they are written while others are allowing liberal use of conventional replacement animals.  Now it appears that at best a rule will be published in 2014 – and even that would presumably require a phase-in period.

Observed Ed Maltby, the executive director of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, “Economic justification has now become an important criteria in deciding what gets priority to proceed to regulation … We have offered over the years to assist NOP with the economic justification based on the capital investment of the majority of organic operations which are small to mid-size, the lack of an organic premium for organic heifers raised by these farms and the ability for large herds to manipulate the milk supply (pay price). Unfortunately they haven’t used our expertise.”

Maltby also points to a finding by auditors that they identified one instance of a large dairy producer asking its certifying agent to allow continued conversion of conventional cows into its herd or they would switch certifying agents.

Says Kastel, “Make no mistake about it.  The current regulations are clear.  If the USDA wanted to enforce the prohibition on conventional cattle, on organic dairies, after the initial transition period, they could do so.  But no matter whether or not the Republicans or Democrats hold the White House there is an institutional bias at the USDA towards corporate agribusiness at the expense of family farmers.  This should not be tolerated in any of agriculture but it sure as hell should not be tolerated in the organic movement.”

The Cornucopia Institute will continue to engage in regulatory oversight but some of these fights will likely move into the court system.  In the short term, concerned organic consumers can consult Cornucopia’s organic dairy scorecard where they can identify exemplary brands of organic dairy products that support family farmers who legitimately graze their cattle and raise their young stock from birth on organic milk and feed, without antibiotics and other banned drugs

Source: www.cornucopia.org

See the Cornucopia Organic Dairy Scorecard here: http://www.cornucopia.org/dairysurvey/index.html

 

You say you want a revolution… well, you know… you should really read this.

Image

 

 

Joel Salatin

Aug. 18, 2013

 

Why do we need more farmers? What is the driving force behind USDA policy? In an infuriating epiphany

I have yet to metabolize, I found out Wednesday in a private policy-generation meeting with Virginia Democratic

gubernatorial candidate Terry McCauliffe. I did and still do consider it a distinct honor for his staff to invite me as

one of the 25 dignitaries in Virginia Agriculture for this think-tank session in Richmond.

It was a who’s who of Virginia agriculture: Farm Bureau, Va. Agribusiness Council, Va. Forestry Association,
Va. Poultry Federation, Va. Cattlemen’s Ass., deans from Virginia Tech and Virginia State–you get the picture.
It was the first meeting of this kind I’ve ever attended that offered no water. The only thing to drink were soft drinks.
Lunch was served in styrofoam clam shells–Lay’s potato chips, sandwiches, potato salad and chocolate chip cookie.
It didn’t look very safe to me, so I didn’t partake. But I’d have liked a drink of water. In another circumstance, I might
eat this stuff, but with these folks, felt it important to make a point. Why do they all assume nobody wants water,
nobody cares about styrofoam, everybody wants potato chips and we all want industrial meat-like slabs on white bread?

But I digress. The big surprise occurred a few minutes into the meeting: US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
walked in. He was in Terry McCauliffe love-in mode. And here is what he told us: for the first time–2012– rural America
lost population in real numbers–not as a percentage but in real numbers. It’s down to 16 percent of total population.

I’m sitting there thinking he’s going to say that number needs to go up so we have more people to love and
steward the landscape. More people to care for earthworms. More people to grow food and fiber. Are you ready
for the shoe to drop? The epiphany? What could the US Secretary of Agriculture, at the highest strategic planning
sessions of our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get more people in rural America, to
encourage farming and help more farms get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers?
Why does he go to bed at night trying to figure out how to increase farmers? How does the President and other
cabinet members view his role as the nation’s farming czar? What could be the most important contribution that
increasing farmers could offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care for animals?
Better care for plants?

Are you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16 percent of the population, it gives
40 percent of the personnel to the military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of the
day, the bottom line–you know all the cliches–the whole reason for increasing farms is to provide cannon
fodder for American imperial might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back,
and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.

So folks, it all boils down to American military muscle. It’s not about food, healing the land, stewarding
precious soil and resources; it’s all about making sure we keep a steady stream of youngsters going into the
military. This puts an amazing twist on things. You see, I think we should have many more farmers, and have
spent a lifetime trying to encourage, empower, and educate young people to go into farming. It never occurred
to me that this agenda was the key to American military power.

Lest I be misread, I am not opposed to defending family. I am not opposed to fighting for sacred causes.
I am violently opposed to non-sacred fighting and meddling in foreign countries, and building empires. The
Romans already tried that and failed.

But to think that my agenda is key to building the American military–now that’s a cause for pause. I will
redouble my efforts to help folks remember why we need more farmers. It’s not to provide cannon fodder for
Wall Street imperialistic agendas. It’s to grow food that nourishes, land that’s aesthetically and aromatically
sensually romantic, build soil, hydrate raped landscapes, and convert more solar energy into biomass than
nature would in a static state. I can think of many, many righteous and noble reasons to have more farms.
Why couldn’t he have mentioned any of these? Any?

No, the reason for more farms is to make sure we get people signing up at the recruitment office. That’s
the way he sees me as a farmer. Not a food producer. When the president and his cabinet have their private
conflabs, they don’t see farmers as food producers, as stewards of the landscape, as resource leveragers.
No, they view us as insurance for military muscle, for American empire building and soldier hubris. Is this
outrageous? Do I have a right to be angry? Like me, this raw and bold show of the government’s farming
agenda should make us all feel betrayed, belittled, and our great nation besmirched.

Perhaps, just perhaps, really good farms don’t feed this military personnel pipeline. I’d like to think our
kind of farming has more righteous goals and sacred objectives. Vilsack did not separate good farmers from
bad farmers. Since we have far more bad farmers than good ones, perhaps the statistic would not hold up
if we had more farmers who viewed the earth as something to heal instead of hurt, as a partner to caress
instead of rape. That America’s farms are viewed by our leaders as just another artery leading into military
might is unspeakably demeaning and disheartening.

Tragically, I don’t think this view would change with a different Democrat or Republican. It’s entrenched
in the establishment fraternity. Thomas Jefferson, that iconic and quintessential agrarian intellectual, said
we should have a revolution about every half century just to keep the government on its toes. I’d say we’re
long overdue.

Now when you see those great presidentially appointed cabinet members talking, I just want you to think
about how despicable it is that behind the facade, behind the hand shaking and white papers, in the private
by-invitation-only inner circles of our country, movers and shakers know axiomatically that farms are really
important to germinate more military personnel. That no one in that room with Terry McCauliffe, none of those
Virginia farm leaders, even blinked when he said that is still hard for me to grasp. They accepted it as truth,
probably saying “Amen, brother” in their hearts. True patriots, indeed.

It’ll take me awhile to get over this, and believe me, I intend to shout this from the housetops. I’ll incorporate
in as many public speeches as I can because I think it speaks to the heart of food and farming. It speaks to
the heart of strength and security; which according to our leaders comes from the end of a gun, not from the
alimentary canal of an earthworm. Here’s to more healthy worms.


Joel Salatin- Polyface Farms

Monsanto Bound to Promise Not To Sue Organic Farmers in OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto

ImageImageImageImage

This is our series of great photos by Janet Nash of the January 31, 2012, rally in Foley Square in Manhattan in support of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association in their fight against Monsanto: OSGATA et al vs. Monsanto.

www.gmofreenewyork.org

Continue reading to find out what happened with the case…..

 Today a decision was reached in theOSGATA et al. v. Monsanto lawsuit by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.

The three-judge panel ruled that a group of organic- and otherwise non-GMO- farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents. This decision was accompanied with the following explanation that ”Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not ‘take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).’”

While today’s ruling affirmed the Southern District of New York’s previous decision, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Dan Ravicher, of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), views the decision as a partial victory.

“Before this suit, the Organic Seed plaintiffs were forced to take expensive precautions and avoid full use of their land in order to not be falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto,” said Ravicher. “The decision today means that the farmers did have the right to bring the suit to protect themselves, but now that Monsanto has bound itself to not suing the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals believes the suit should not move forward.”

Maine organic seed farmer and President of OSGATA Jim Gerritsen said, “Even though we’re disappointed with the Court’s ruling not to hear our case, we’re encouraged by the court’s determination that Monsanto does not have the right to sue farmers for trace contamination. However, the farmers went to court seeking justice not only about contamination, but also the larger question of the validity of Monsanto’s patents. Justice has not been served.”

Despite the Court of Appeals’ Decision today the plaintiffs still have the right to ask the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision and ultimately reinstate the case. Ravicher said the Organic Seed plaintiffs are considering doing so.

For complete background on the OSGATA et al v. Monsanto lawsuit, click here.   

 

 

Food is Ammunition, Buy Organic… Here’s 10 reasons why you should

10 Good Reasons To Go Organic

Organic products meet stringent standards
Organic certification is the public’s assurance that products have been grown and handled according to strict procedures without persistent toxic chemical inputs.

Organic food tastes great!
It’s common sense – well-balanced soils produce strong, healthy plants that become nourishing food for people and animals.

Organic production reduces health risks
Many EPA-approved pesticides were registered long before extensive research linked these chemicals to cancer and other diseases. Organic agriculture is one way to prevent any more of these chemicals from getting into the air, earth and water that sustain us.

Organic farms respect our water resources
The elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, done in combination with soil building, protects and conserves water resources.

Organic farmers build healthy soil
Soil is the foundation of the food chain. The primary focus of organic farming is to use practices that build healthy soils.

Organic farmers work in harmony with nature
Organic agricultural respects the balance demanded of a healthy ecosystem: wildlife is encouraged by including forage crops in rotation and by retaining fence rows, wetlands, and other natural areas.

Organic producers are leaders in innovative research
Organic farmers have led the way, largely at their own expense, with innovative on-farm research aimed at reducing pesticide use and minimizing agriculture’s impact on the environment.

Organic producers strive to preserve diversity
The loss of a large variety of species (biodiversity) is one of the most pressing environmental concerns. The good news is that many organic farmers and gardeners have been collecting and preserving seeds, and growing unusual varieties for decades.

Organic farming helps keep rural communities healthy
USDA reported that in 1997, half of U.S. farm production came from only 2% of farms. Organic agriculture can be a lifeline for small farms because it offers an alternative market where sellers can command fair prices for crops.

Organic abundance – Foods and non-foods alike!
Now every food category has an organic alternative. And non-food agricultural products are being grown organically – even cotton, which most experts felt could not be grown this way.

Organic Trade Association http://www.ota.com/

Source http://www.ota.com/organic_and_you/10reasons.html

GMO, Organic, Food, Ammunition

Photo by Janet Nash.