RE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4021691

62. anti-vaxxer propaganda kills people, and it seems you're doing your best
to become an accomplice to those homicides.
Very ironic, and repulsive, that while pimping misinformation whose function is to make the spread of preventable disease more likely, you cite the work of HIV activists who sought to reduce the spread of disease.

http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx

[img][/img]

Vaccine Schedule

ECDC collects information on vaccination schedules in the EU/EEA countries with the help of ECDC national focal points. This tool allows for comparison of shedules between two countries and diseases for all or a selection of countries.

<>

[img]http://www.bloomberg.com/video/the-economics-of-vaccines-556FjKcrRumuMfi9WfacAg.html[/img]

VIDEO (2:41): The Economics of Vaccines

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Olivia Sterns reports on Merck's vaccines business. She speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers." (Source: Bloomberg)

https://www.facebook.com/TheCanaryParty

The Canary Party shared a link: Video above.

October 31
You know that talking point about how vaccines don't make any money and Pharma just does it for the good of humanity?

<>

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2620/fda-to-withdraw-approvals-of-arsenic-in-animal-feed

FDA to Withdraw Approvals of Arsenic in Animal Feed
October 1st, 2013

Win for Public Health as Legal Pressure of Food Safety and Agriculture Groups Compels Agency and Industry to Act

Late yesterday, under threat of a lawsuit, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to a nearly four-year-old petition, calling for the immediate withdrawal of the vast majority of arsenic-containing compounds used as feed additives for chickens, turkeys and hogs. A lawsuit filed by Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of CFS, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), and seven other U.S. food safety, agriculture, public health, and environmental groups compelled the FDA to respond. FDA will withdraw three of the four arsenicals and all drug approvals associated with them. Of the 101 drug approvals for arsenic-based animal drugs, 98 will be withdrawn.

“The withdrawal of these harmful feed additives is a major victory for consumers and the health of our food system. It is unfortunate that legal pressure from outside groups was necessary to spur action by FDA, yet in the end, we are pleased that FDA listened to our scientific objections and is now working to rid arsenic from our meat supply,” said Paige Tomaselli, senior attorney with Center for Food Safety.

“The actions by FDA and industry confirm what we’ve been saying for seven years, the use of arsenic in animal feed is not necessary and poses needless risk to public health,” said Ben Lilliston, vice president for program at IATP. “The FDA’s response is long overdue to reduce exposure to arsenic and should launch a more comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with animal feed produced by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Arsenic is added to poultry feed for the purposes of inducing faster weight gain on less feed, and creating the perceived appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens, turkeys and hogs. A 2006 IATP report estimated that more than 70 percent of all U.S. chickens raised for meat are fed arsenic, and testing of supermarket bought and fast food chicken found that much of it contained some level of arsenic.

<>

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-to-the-Legislature-522-Concerns-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods_ByCounty.html

Initiative to the Legislature 522 Concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods - County Results

Last updated on 11/08/2013 6:34 PM PST

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html
http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-to-the-Legislature-522-Concerns-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods.html

Last updated on 11/08/2013 5:41 PM PST

Yes - 738,137 (47.56%)

No - 813,906 (52.44%)

177,845 estimated ballots on hand to be processed.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Yeson522&src=hash

53m
180,000 ballots to go with over half of those from King Co! Come on dudes lets DO this thing!

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28685.cfm

'No Promises': Key Senators Won't Commit to Protecting States' Rights to Label GMOs

By Katherine Paul
Organic Consumers Association, November 6, 2013

It took months of dogging the office gatekeepers and synchronizing schedules. But as promised, the Organic Consumers Association arranged meetings with 10 (well, eight, technically), of the 71 U.S. Senators who on May 24, 2013, voted against the Sanders Amendment to the Farm Bill. (The Sanders Amendment, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was intended to definitively establish that states have the right to require labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food sold in retail stores).

What we learned was this. Not one out of the 10 senators, including staunch Republicans who historically have fought for states' rights, would commit to rejecting federal legislation intended to preempt or overturn states' rights to labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products.

Not one.

On the upside, we were able to deliver our message, and let it be known that consumers-and voters-in these 10 states expect lawmakers to take GMO labeling laws seriously.

Why go to so much trouble to meet with lawmakers? After all, under the U.S. Constitution, states already have the right to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws-just as they've passed nearly 200 other state laws governing food safety and agriculture.

For starters, we wanted to know why these senators would vote against the will of the 93 percent of Americans who want GMO labeling laws.

But there was something else, even more important, that we wanted to know. With the King Amendment to the Farm Bill still in play, we wanted these senators to pledge that they would not support any federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws. (The King Amendment, introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), seeks to negate most state and local laws regarding the production or manufacture of agriculture products. It is widely feared that if passed, this provision could be used to preempt state GMO labeling laws).

So we worked with state GMO labeling activists. We reached out to MoveOn.org members who support GMO labeling laws in their states. With everyone's help, we arranged meetings with either the senators themselves, or members of their staff.

The results? Not exactly what we'd hoped. We heard a lot of mumbo jumbo about protecting interstate commerce, and about how state laws would cause "confusion." We heard rumblings about voluntary labeling as an alternative to mandatory labeling laws.

And we heard a lot of talk about the need for a federal law, not state laws. Yet despite all that talk, only two of the senators on our list have signed on to the Boxer-DeFazio bill, the only pending federal legislation to require mandatory labeling of GMOs. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), became a sponsor of the bill in April. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, after being pressured by consumers to support GMO labeling, signed on as a co-sponsor this week, November 4.

And did we mention that not one of the 10 senators would promise to reject any federal law intended to stomp out states' rights to label GMOs?

Thanks to all the activists and organizers and concerned consumers and citizens who helped us organize, and participated in these meetings!

Here's a wrap-up of what we learned.

ILLINOIS: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) - $28,000 in campaign contributions from agribusiness

On September 24, members of Illinois Right to Know GMO" along with an OCA staffer, met with the director of Sen. Durbin's Chicago office. We wanted to hear from Sen. Durbin because he's the Senate Assistant Majority Leader, and because the people of Illinois have been clear: They want labels on genetically engineered (GE) foods. We learned that Sen. Durbin:

• Was not offering an explanation for why he voted against the Sanders Amendment
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws
• Would not commit to supporting a federal GMO labeling law

KENTUCKY: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) - No significant campaign contributions from agribusiness

Representatives from Kentucky's March against Monsanto organizers met in Louisville on September 20 with Sen. Paul's agricultural liaison, Whitney Meadows. Carolyn Moffa from Sen. Paul's D.C. office joined by phone. We learned that Sen. Paul:

• Didn't support the Sander's amendment because it was "poorly written," and because he didn't see the need for a federal mandate of support for states' rights.
• Supports states' rights to label, but would not issue a formal statement to that effect
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws

MAINE: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) - $17,500 in 2012 campaign contributions from agribusiness

Citizen activists and members of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) and MoveOn.org met with Senator Collins on July 29, via video conference. We singled out Sen. Collins because she's a staunch advocate of states' rights, and because Maine passed a GMO labeling law in June. We learned that Sen. Collins:

• Favors a federal GMO labeling law over state laws (but has not signed on to the Boxer-DeFazio bill)
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws
• Would not clearly state, one way or the other, her support or lack of support for Maine's GMO labeling law

The upshot? As one of our activists put it, we learned one thing for certain: Sen. Collins is a master at bobbing and weaving.

MASSACHUSETTS: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)

We weren't able to arrange a meeting with Sen. Warren. However, once we learned that she, along with Sen. Mark Udall (C-Colo.), were pushing for the FDA to finalize its guidance on voluntary labeling of GMOs, we ratcheted up our efforts to reach out to her.

The OCA launched an action alert, asking Sen. Warren to rescind her letter to the FDA asking for voluntary guidance, and to support mandatory GMO labeling laws instead.

On November 4, Sen. Warren signed on as a co-sponsor to the Boxer-DeFazio bill. We continue to hope that she will withdraw her request to the FDA to finalize its guidance on voluntary labeling, because we believe the FDA's voluntary guidance would make any GMO labeling law, state or federal, impossible. Otherwise, why would Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association be so keen to see this happen?

MICHIGAN: Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) - $740,926 in campaign contributions from agribusiness

We couldn't wait to meet with Sen. Stabenow, because not only is she chair of the Senate Ag Committee, she actually led the opposition to the Sanders amendment. The fact that she took in more contributions from agribusiness in 2012 than any other senator is just icing on the cake.

Unfortunately, we were unable to arrange an in-person meeting with Sen. Stabenow or her staff. But here's, verbatim, what her press secretary said, in an email, when we asked why Sen. Stabenow voted against the Sanders Amendment, and whether the senator would reject federal legislation that would preempt or override states' rights to label.

"As Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I'm committed to supporting the great diversity of American agriculture, including organics - the consumer alternative to GMOs. In fact, I wrote the first-ever specialty crops and organics title of the Farm Bill in 2008. Our 2013 Senate Farm Bill recognizes that organics, which of course cannot be genetically modified, are the fastest-growing segment of American agriculture. My focus on organics has helped establish important assistance programs for organic producers with dedicated organic research funding, critical data collection on organic markets, and assistance for farmers transitioning into organic agriculture. The new Senate Farm Bill also improves enforcement of organic standards to ensure consumers have confidence in the organic products they purchase, and it expands the organic cost share program to help producers get certified. The new Senate Farm Bill also requires better organic price standards for crop insurance, making sure organic producers have access to strong risk management tools like traditional commodity crops do, to insure themselves against disasters and other unanticipated emergencies.

"Because the labeling of GMOs is under the jurisdiction of the FDA and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it was not appropriate to include this issue in the Farm Bill without the consent and support of the HELP Committee leadership. I strongly support labeling when it is warranted for food safety purposes. And I believe there needs to be increased research on the safety of genetically modified crops using the principles of sound science. I will continue to monitor this issue closely."

So, there you have it. Sen. Stabenow supports labeling "when it is warranted for food safety purposes," but she doesn't conclusively state that she believes there are any safety issues with GMOs-just that there should be more "research." And she wouldn't answer the question about supporting or rejecting a federal law that would preempt states' rights.

MINNESOTA: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) - $18,800 in campaign contributions from agribusiness

On Sept. 9, about six Minnesota state GMO labeling activists and two OCA staff members met with Al Juhnke, State Ag & Energy Advisor to Sen. Al Franken, and Bethany Snyder, a field representative from Sen. Franken's office. We learned that Sen. Franken:

• "Looks to the FDA for guidance" on food safety and labeling issues.
• Favors a federal approach over a state-by-state "checkerboard" approach to GMO labeling (but has not signed on to the Boxer-DeFazio bill)
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws

Mr. Juhnke and Ms. Snyder repeatedly brought up the issue of voluntary, versus mandatory, GMO labeling. That, plus the fact that Sen. Franken has not signed on to the Boxer-DeFazio bill, has us worried.

MISSISSIPPI: Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss) - $71,500 in campaign contributions from agribusiness

On Sept. 10th, a total of nine people, representing the OCA, MoveOn.org and the Jackson March Against Monsanto organizers, met with two members of Sen. Cochran's staff. The meeting was described as having gone well, with the staffers much impressed by the group's knowledge of, and passion for, the issue. We didn't get answers to our specific questions about why Sen. Cochran voted no on the Sanders Amendment, or whether or not he would support federal legislation that could preempt or overturn states' rights to label GMOs. But the story didn't end there. One of the co-organizers of the meeting, Lindsey Lemmons, traveled to Washington D.C. on September 12, to meet with staffers in Sen. Cochran's D.C. office. And last we knew, Ms. Lemmons was setting up an in-person meeting with the senator during his Thanksgiving break. Bottom line? No real answers yet. But we're certain that activists in Mississippi will hold Sen. Cochran's feet to the fire on the GMO labeling issue.

NEW JERSEY: Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) - $159,050 in 2012 campaign contributions from agribusiness

Members of GMO Free NJ, MoveOn.org and other groups met with Frank Schultz, Project Specialist for Sen. Menendez, on August 14. They learned that Sen. Mendez:

• Favors federal over state GMO labeling laws because if GMO laws are differ from state to state, it's too difficult for producers and confusing for consumers (though he has not signed on to the Boxer-DeFazio bill)
• Would not commit to supporting a New Jersey State labeling law
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws
• Voted in favor of an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that would have required an additional review into the health and safety of genetically modified salmon before it can be sold to consumers.

NEW YORK: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) - $198,883 in 2012 campaign contributions from agribusiness

Members of GMO Free NY, Food & Water Watch and Hunger Action Network NYC, and Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist with the Consumers Union, along with others, met with Sen. Gillibrand's staff on July 29. They learned that Sen. Gillibrand:

• Supports a federal GMO labeling law
• Would not commit to supporting a New York state GMO labeling law
• Would not commit to rejecting federal legislation that would preempt or override state GMO labeling laws

In an email from Sen. Gillibrand's office, to one of our members asking for clarification on her stance on GMO labeling laws, Sen. Gillibrand responded with this:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can play an important role in combating world hunger, increasing agricultural productivity, and improving the nutritional content of certain foods. I do, however, share your concerns about the potential risks of environmental contamination and long-term impacts these illegal GMOs may have on human health.

Currently, there are many opinions regarding the safety risks associated with GMOs, but very little scientific evidence to help consumers make informed decisions. We need to develop better diagnostic methods for evaluating the safety of consuming GMOs, as well as improved oversight and management of agricultural practices that might contribute to genetically modified seeds cross-contaminating conventional production systems.

WISCONSIN: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Activists from Right to know Wisconsin and MoveOn.org met with one of Sen. Baldwin's staff members on August 30. We learned that Sen. Baldwin:

• Didn't vote for the Sanders Amendment because she considered it to be "redundant"
• Recommended those attending the meeting contact their state representatives if they were interested in proposing a state labeling law or ballot initiative
• Could not provide any assurance on rejecting federal legislation that could preempt state labeling laws

Katherine Paul is Associate Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-to-the-Legislature-522-Concerns-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods.html

YES - 630,439 (46.76%)

No - 717,698 (53.24%)

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

Estimated ballots on hand to be processed - 340,518

11/07/2013
6:00 PM PST

http://m.foe.org/news/2013-11-mcdonalds-gerber-say-no-to-gmo-apple

McDonald's, Gerber say no to GMO apple
Market rejection of GMOs grows in wake of labeling fights

Posted Nov. 7, 2013 / Posted by: Adam Russell

WASHINGTON, DC - In letters to Friends of the Earth, the world’s largest restaurant chain McDonald’s, and leading baby food manufacturer Gerber have confirmed they do not plan to sell or use the Arctic® apple, the first genetically engineered apple that has an application pending before the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“McDonald’s and Gerber are wise to distance themselves from the Arctic® apple. They understand their customers, particularly parents, are leery of unlabeled, poorly studied genetically engineered foods,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Food & Technology Program at Friends of the Earth. “This is further proof that the market is rejecting GMOs."

Commenting on the possible loss of Washington State’s GMO labeling initiative, Archer said: “Companies invested in profits from GMOs might have bought Washington’s election, but they can’t stop the market from rejecting their products.”

In a letter dated Oct. 31, 2013, Gerber confirmed its policy to avoid genetically modified organisms in fruit and vegetable purees for babies, and said it has no plans to use the Arctic® apple. Gerber is owned by Nestle, which sells many processed foods containing GMOs, and has spent over $2 million fighting GMO labeling voter initiatives in Washington and California.

McDonald’s, which sells apple slices and is expanding its fruit and vegetable menu offerings, confirmed in a letter dated Nov. 1, 2013, that it also has no plans to use Arctic® apples. The apples are genetically engineered using a controversial new method that turns off the apple’s natural browning mechanism.

These food companies join major apple growing associations, including USApple and the Northwest Horticultural Council (representing Washington apple growers who grow more than 60 percent of U.S. apples), that have stated opposition to this GMO apple.

<>

http://on.cc.com/16IF0lM

Wednesday November 6, 2013
Washington State's GMO Labeling Initiative

Washington state voters defeat a ballot initiative that would require warning labels on genetically modified foods. (03:55)