美國加州人民發(fā)起將宣判轉(zhuǎn)基因死刑的公民投票表決倡議
加利福尼亞發(fā)起轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)投票表決倡議：勇敢對抗孟山都
The California Ballot Initiative: Standing Up to Monsanto
轉(zhuǎn)載自美國《有機(jī)消費(fèi)者協(xié)會(huì)》網(wǎng)站：
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24074.cfm
By Ronnie Cummins
作者：羅尼·卡敏思（Ronnie Cummins），有機(jī)消費(fèi)者協(xié)會(huì)
Oct 7, 2011/2011年10月7日
翻譯與轉(zhuǎn)載者：陳一文（[email protected]）
（80年代兩屆全國青聯(lián)委員）
《新浪網(wǎng)》“陳一文顧問博客”轉(zhuǎn)載：http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan
《陳一文顧問網(wǎng)站》：http://sea3000.net/cheniwan
Monsanto and Food Inc."s stranglehold over the nation"s food and farming system is about to be challenged in a food fight that will largely determine the future of American agriculture. A growing corps of organic food and health activists in California - supported by consumers and farmers across the nation - are boldly standing up to Monsanto and its minions, taking the first steps to expose the widespread contamination of non-organic grocery store foods with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and moving to implement mandatory GMO labeling through a grassroots-powered Citizens Ballot Initiative process.
有機(jī)番茄與轉(zhuǎn)基因番茄
This month, lawyers representing a broad and unprecedented health, environmental, and consumer coalition, including the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Bronner"s Magic Soap, Center for Food Safety, Mercola.com, Nature"s Path, Natural News.com, LabelGMOs.org, Food Democracy Now, and the Institute for Responsible Technology, are filing papers with the California Attorney General"s office to place a Citizens Initiative on the Ballot in November 2012 that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients.
According to Zuri Star, a Southern California field organizer for the Organic Consumers Association, "The California Ballot Initiative is perhaps our last chance to stop the Biotech Express, to overthrow Biotechnology"s dictatorial regime and build a safe and sustainable food and farming system based upon the ethical principles of consumer choice and BioDemocracy."
Moving the Battleground 轉(zhuǎn)移戰(zhàn)場 After twenty years of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans, a critical mass of food and health activists have decided it"s time to move beyond small skirmishes and losing battles and go on the offensive. It"s time to move the food fight over labeling GE food from the unfavorable terrain of Washington D.C. and Capital Hill, where Monsanto and Food Inc. exercise near-dictatorial control, to California, the heartland of organic food and farming and anti-GMO sentiment, where 80-85% of the body politic, according to recent polls, support mandatory labeling. The trillion-dollar biotech, supermarket, and food industry are acutely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of genetically engineered food. Consumers understand that you don"t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical and biotech companies like Monsanto, Dow, or DuPont - the same people who brought us toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, Agent Orange, carcinogenic food additives, PCBs, and now global warming. Biotech, food, and grocery corporations are alarmed by the fact that every poll over the last 20 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. Europe Shows Labels Drive GMOs off the Market 歐洲的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)將轉(zhuǎn)基因食品清除市場 Why are there basically no genetically engineered foods or crops anywhere in Europe, while 75% of U.S. supermarket foods - including many so-called "natural" foods - are GE-tainted? The answer is simple. In Europe genetically engineered foods and ingredients have to be labeled. In the U.S. they do not. Up until now, in North America, Monsanto and the Biotechnocrats have enjoyed free reign to secretly lace non-organic foods with gene-spliced viruses, bacteria, antibiotic-resistant marker genes, and foreign DNA-mutant "Frankenfoods" shown to severely damage the health of animals, plants, and other living organisms in numerous scientific studies. Monsanto and their allies understand the threat that truth-in-labeling poses for GMOs. As soon as genetically engineered foods start to be labeled in the U.S., millions of consumers will start to read these labels and react. They"ll complain to grocery store managers and companies, they"ll talk to their family and friends. They"ll start switching to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about GE foods and food ingredients; stores will eventually stop selling them; and farmers will stop planting them. Genetically engineered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from ever getting a public discussion, much less coming to a vote in Congress. 陳一文顧問按：美國民眾堅(jiān)持強(qiáng)制性轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)的一項(xiàng)非常重要內(nèi)容，是來自喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米成分飼料的家畜、家禽的“肉、蛋、奶”食品原料，以及由它們加工生產(chǎn)的一切食品也都必須標(biāo)識(shí)“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品”，而不能網(wǎng)開一面！ Passing mandatory GMO labeling in just one large state, California, where there is tremendous opposition to GE foods as well as a multi-billion dollar organic food industry, will ultimately have the same impact as a national labeling law. If California food and health activists succeed in putting a GMO labeling initiative on the ballot in 2012 and the voters pass it, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma. Will they dare put labels on their branded food products in just one state, California, admitting these products contain or may contain genetically engineered ingredients, while withholding this ingredient label information in the other states? Will they allow their organic and non-GMO competitors to drive down their GMO-tainted brand market share? The answer to both of these questions is likely no. What most of them will do is start to shift to organic and non-GMO ingredients, so as to avoid what the Monsanto executive 16 years ago aptly described as the "skull and crossbones" label. California Label Laws Have National Impact: Proposition 65 加利福尼亞的標(biāo)識(shí)法律將有全國性影響：提案65 A clear indication of the impact of warning labels on consumer products was established in California in 1986 when voters passed, over the strenuous opposition of industry, a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California. This same scenario will likely unfold again in California in 2012. Once food manufacturers and supermarkets are forced to come clean and label genetically engineered products, they will likely remove all GE ingredients, to avoid the "skull and crossbones" effect, just like the food industry in the EU has done. In the wake of this development American farmers will convert millions of acres of GE crops to non-GMO or organic varieties. Finally consumers will be able to tell the difference between organic food (labeled as "organic" and thereby GMO-free); natural food (which will not have a GMO label), and bogus "natural" food (which will be required to display the label "contains or may contain GMOs"). What Now? The Campaign Needs Volunteers and Money 現(xiàn)在需要干什么？該項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)需要志愿者與經(jīng)費(fèi) Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are already gearing up to fight against the California Ballot Initiative. They will literally spend millions to spread lies and disinformation that GMO foods and crops are perfectly safe; and that we need more, not less GMO food and biofuel crops in this era of climate change and growing population, etc. As the campaign progresses, they will lie and say that GMO labels will be costly to the food industry and raise food prices. We"ll have to counter these lies of course, now and throughout the campaign, but first of all we must make sure that the 2012 GE Food Labeling When corporations like Monsanto decide to launch a ballot initiative in California, or other states, one of the first things they do is hand over a couple of million dollars to a professional petition gathering business. Since, unlike Monsanto, we don"t have a couple of million dollars to spare, we"re going to have to rely on an army of volunteers to gather signatures. These volunteers can be trained and coordinated by our small, but highly dedicated and experienced, paid campaign staff and consultants, but for the most part we must drive this campaign forward with volunteer labor. In order to hit the ground running in December, gathering 500-700,000 petition signatures of registered voters to put this measure on the ballot, we need your help now. We need an army of thousands of volunteer petition gatherers to step forward in California. And we need money. OCA and our allied lobbying organization, the Organic Consumers Fund, estimate that we need to raise at least $60,000 over the next month in order to effectively play our part in the California Ballot Initiative Campaign, to pay our staff, consultants, and other campaign expenses. 相關(guān)研究資料： http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017r5c.html 美國民眾《爭取轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)知情權(quán)》大游行視頻報(bào)道影集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtxp.html 美國食品安全中心向FDA提出法律請?jiān)敢髮D(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtv3.html 邁克•布羅吶：為何我參加《爭取轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)知情權(quán)》大游行 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtsn.html 美國民眾爭取轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)知情權(quán)大游行堅(jiān)持科學(xué)與群眾基礎(chǔ) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtrn.html 美國民眾爭取轉(zhuǎn)基因標(biāo)識(shí)知情權(quán)紐約至華盛頓大游行動(dòng)態(tài)1) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtil.html “小人物”轉(zhuǎn)基因食物螞蟻試驗(yàn)掀翻黃大昉們“轉(zhuǎn)基因安全”神 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtvr.html 倒了，倒了，張啟發(fā)轉(zhuǎn)基因Bt稻米也倒了，必須重新審核 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtdd.html 陳一文：破了破了，轉(zhuǎn)基因“金稻米”騙局也被戳破！ http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017pt7.html 陳一文：轉(zhuǎn)基因違背自然規(guī)律方舟子黃大昉欺上瞞下有意混淆 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100pepv.html 陳一文：方舟子黃大昉為何誤導(dǎo)欺騙稱轉(zhuǎn)基因是傳統(tǒng)育種延伸 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100p71f.html 北京市民向農(nóng)業(yè)部遞交《轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆審批材料信息公開申請 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtp1.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtom.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dto4.html 宋安群：討論幾條生物共有的基本運(yùn)動(dòng)規(guī)律（2005年） http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dto3.html 達(dá)爾文《物種起源》不同意“物種的變異完全歸因于自然選擇”… http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dto1.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtns.html 鄢浪云：反轉(zhuǎn)最前線的一天（9.19郭成林上訴案旁聽二審實(shí)錄） http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtox.html 郭成林上訴委托的辯護(hù)律師：再次請求法院調(diào)取證據(jù)函(全文) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtos.html 全國教育系統(tǒng)嚴(yán)禁大中小學(xué)采購轉(zhuǎn)基因食用油風(fēng)暴不可阻擋 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtlf.html 烏魯木齊教育、衛(wèi)生、食藥品監(jiān)管局聯(lián)合拒絕轉(zhuǎn)基因食用油 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtkp.html 全國教育局必須向山東安丘市教育局學(xué)習(xí)：拒絕轉(zhuǎn)基因食用油 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtk3.html 郭鶴年背叛母親遺訓(xùn)：轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油禁供香格里拉專供民眾 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dthh.html 遭金龍魚陷害郭成林辯護(hù)律師深圳中院9月19日二審辯護(hù)詞 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtb1.html 羊城晚報(bào)：郭成林揭露金龍魚獲刑一年上訴深圳中級法院二審 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtb8.html 旁聽反轉(zhuǎn)人士：遭金龍魚陷害郭成林上訴深圳中院二審概要 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtb7.html 金龍魚：關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)文章涉嫌侵害商業(yè)信譽(yù)商品聲譽(yù)相關(guān)建議 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtax.html 金龍魚化學(xué)浸出轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油涉嫌危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全罪 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt97.html 危害1：化學(xué)浸出轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油含有溶劑殘留己烷是神經(jīng)毒素 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr8f.html 危害2：抗草甘膦轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油草甘膦殘留量嚴(yán)重危害健康 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr58.html 危害3：抗草甘膦轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油成品油含轉(zhuǎn)基因片段危害健康 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr57.html 危害4：轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆脂肪酸含量比非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的低不利健康 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr56.html 危害5：轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油的有益元素重金屬含量與非轉(zhuǎn)豆油不同 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr55.html 危害6：轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油多酚種類含量大不相同為非轉(zhuǎn)大豆3倍 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dr54.html 農(nóng)業(yè)部批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆進(jìn)口涉嫌以危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全罪 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt68.html 證據(jù)一：孟山都的官方“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全證明書”涉嫌偽造 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt67.html 證據(jù)二：孟山都給農(nóng)業(yè)部轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的全套申請文件涉嫌造假 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt64.html 證據(jù)三：孟山都給農(nóng)業(yè)部的毒理學(xué)研究動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)報(bào)告涉嫌造假 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt62.html 證據(jù)四：農(nóng)業(yè)部瀆職對草甘膦殘留等化學(xué)品殘留故意不做檢測 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt5z.html 證據(jù)五：農(nóng)業(yè)部轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食動(dòng)物90天動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)造假 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt5w.html 證據(jù)五：農(nóng)業(yè)部的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)造假（文獻(xiàn)附錄） http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt5v.html 證據(jù)六七八：農(nóng)業(yè)部專家評審審批方案部長批件皆造假欺騙 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt5u.html 農(nóng)業(yè)部何以孟山都一家私利冒充中美貿(mào)易大局欺騙領(lǐng)導(dǎo)與人民 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt0w.html 農(nóng)業(yè)部必須全文公布審批轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆進(jìn)口等四份動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)報(bào)告 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dsze.html 農(nóng)業(yè)部審批孟山都轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆進(jìn)口時(shí)為何瀆職不檢測草甘膦 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dswg.html 美國環(huán)保署對草甘膦生態(tài)人類健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)重新評估農(nóng)業(yè)部怎么辦 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dsux.html 農(nóng)業(yè)部必須公布孟山都轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆偽造安全文件重新接受審查 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dssg.html 張啟發(fā)24項(xiàng)目騙取國家自然科學(xué)基金經(jīng)費(fèi)3047萬元必需追究 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtjz.html 香港《文匯報(bào)》:基因改造糧食亂象--追究張啟發(fā)法律責(zé)任 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtij.html 轉(zhuǎn)基因Bt玉米和轉(zhuǎn)基因Bt棉花產(chǎn)生的Bt毒素可能導(dǎo)致過敏癥狀 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017r20.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100tett.html 王月丹：確實(shí)有必要重估轉(zhuǎn)基因大米的安全性 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100t143.html 陳一文：美新科學(xué)家重大發(fā)現(xiàn)顛覆轉(zhuǎn)基因理論偽科學(xué)理論基礎(chǔ) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100s3d1.html 陳一文：張啟發(fā)依老鼠偽試驗(yàn)獲轉(zhuǎn)基因稻米安全許可證應(yīng)撤銷 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100refn.html 陳一文譯：老鼠試驗(yàn)并非大哺乳動(dòng)物轉(zhuǎn)基因研究最好研究模型 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100rcrp.html 陳一文譯：人類轉(zhuǎn)基因激素造成轉(zhuǎn)基因牛卵巢過大牛仔死亡 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100ra7v.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017q02.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017pz7.html
微信掃一掃，進(jìn)入讀者交流群 本文內(nèi)容僅為作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)，不代表網(wǎng)站立場。 請支持獨(dú)立網(wǎng)站紅色文化網(wǎng)，轉(zhuǎn)載請注明文章鏈接-----
http://www.wj160.net/wzzx/xxhq/qq/2013-05-01/1788.html-紅色文化網(wǎng)
佟屏亞向國務(wù)院進(jìn)言：中國沒有必要率先種植轉(zhuǎn)基因水稻
張世煌（非轉(zhuǎn)基因傳統(tǒng)優(yōu)良玉米培育專家）：育種家要盡早清理轉(zhuǎn)基因育種材料
降蘊(yùn)彰：農(nóng)業(yè)部“國家玉米產(chǎn)業(yè)技術(shù)研發(fā)中心”來信緊急清理轉(zhuǎn)基因
相關(guān)文章
-
無相關(guān)信息