A. Introduction

GMO RIGHT TO KNOW INFO PACKET
for the American Consumer

a(www.gmoboycott.blogspot.com)

CONTENTS

                                                   A. Introduction

                                                   B. The whats and whys of genetic engineering

                                                   C. The Case against GMO Labeling

                                                   D. GMO LABELING = A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE

                                                   E. Expanded GMA Boycott List
                                                   F. Unlabeled GMO Future 

A. Introduction

      Different people have varying concerns regarding the presence of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in the human food supply.  Some are concerned about the possible negative health and/or environmental effects of continual consumption of GMOs.  For those people I suggest googling Jeffrey Smith or "Genetic Roulette".
       Other people simply want to opt out of the GMO experiment being imposed on American consumers by international corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta.  As of June, 2014, people in the U.S., could circumvent GMO consumption by avoiding the following foods and ingredients made from these foods (for example corn oil/syrup) unless they were certified organic:
1. Corn
2. Soybeans
3. Sugar beets and sugar from sugar beets
4. Cotton seed meal or oil
5. Dairy milk
6. Aspartame (created with GM bacteria)
7. Yellow crookneck squash
8. Zucchini
9. Papaya
10. Alfalfa
11. Canola
12. Any product from an animal fed with GMOs
There is also a non-GMO Shopping Guide that can be downloaded from www.responsibletechnology.org.   

         This GMO Right to Know Info Packet is for those of us who care about basic human rights.  People who can't afford to choose organic should still have the right to know what they are eating.  The packet is designed to inform the reader of the following:
--A very basic understanding of Genetic Engineering.
--An understanding of the alleged reasons why powerful economic interests oppose labeling of
GMO content in food.
--An understanding of why labeling of GMOs in food should be required by law.
--A knowledge of what concerned consumers can do to defend their right to know.

YOU ARE WELCOME TO COPY ANY OF THE POSTS IN THIS INFORMATION PACKET AND SHARE THEM WITH THOSE NOT ON LINE.

B. The what's and whys of genetic engineering

     According to Wikipedia, "Genetic engineering (GE), also called genetic modification, is.....the changing of an organism's genome using biotechnology. These methods are recent discoveries....  

 ^{An organism that is altered by genetic engineering is a genetically modified organism (GMO).  The first GMOs were bacteria in 1973..."} 

    ^{GMO s are NOT the result of cross pollination or hybridization.}

    ^{According to www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/, "A GMO is an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there."  The World Health Organization defines GMO as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally."} (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism)

^{A FEW EXAMPLES OF GE}

  According to the USDA the production of genetically engineered (GE) crops such as cotton, soy beans, and corn has increased dramatically in this country since 1996.  In 2013, 76-85% of corn, 75-82% of cotton, and 93% of soybeans grown in the country were GMOs.  The Obama Administration has approved the unrestricted growing of genetically engineered alfalfa.  Herbicide-tolerant crops are those that are genetically engineered to survive the effects of herbicides that kill weeds and which are strong enough to kill the crop as well except for the genetic modification.   The corn, cotton, and soybean GE crops referred to above include herbicide tolerant varieties.  The corn and cotton GE crops also include insect-resistant varieties.  These crops contain a gene from soil bacteria which produces a protein that is toxic to specific insect pests.

      GMO Yellow Crookneck Squash and Zucchini contain protein genes that protect against viruses.

     "To increase the quantity of milk produced, cows are often given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), which is also banned in the European Union, as well as in Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/builtlean/diet-and-nutrition_b_4323937.html)

   

   GE is not limited to plant and animal food.  There is cotton, of course. (Although cottonseed oil is an ingredient in a number of processed foods.)  There are the cats that are modified to glow in the dark and multi-colored, glow-in-the-dark aquarium fish.

WHY?

        You may be wondering why anyone would want to manipulate genes.  The short answer is money.  There is money to be made selling Genetically Engineered products.  Monsanto, the largest manufacturer of Genetically Engineered products, earned almost $1.5 billion dollars in the three months ending on February 13, 2013.

      The "official" reason for growing GMOs is to save people in third world countries from starving, to lower food costs, to save water, to increase crop productivity.

       So why are some of us opposed to GMOs?  Some people believe GMO consumption can and/or has made some people ill.  Some people think gene manipulation is contrary to God's will.  Some think GMOs threaten the quality of the environment.   Some fear that GMOs will make the world's overpopulation crisis worse.  Some people don't like being treated as human guinea pigs.

     

       Are GMOs absolutely necessary?  In my opinion, no. (I just read the nation of Bhutan has decided to go 100% organic.)  The alternative, however, would require a massive shift to humans living in harmony with Nature, which those in power would not favor.  I can't imagine how the American Upper Class would survive such a shift.

GMOs AND THE LAW

An article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/) explains that big agrotech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta  require the purchasers of genetically modified seeds to sign an agreement that prohibits the seeds from being used for independent research.  "Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."  From the companies' viewpoint such measures are necessary to protect intellectual property, and they certainly don't want anyone else producing and selling "knock-offs".

      According to this article, research on genetically engineered seeds,  presumably those supplied to scientists by the seed companies, has been published.  But only those studies approved by the seed companies are published in peer-reviewed journals.  I suspect that the researcher is required to agree not to publish findings until the seed company approves the research.

       This may be related to the following incident.  There was a congressional bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in March, 2013.  In an article entitled "Critics Slam Obama For 'Protecting' Monsanto" by Lindsey Boerma, CBS News (March 28, 2013) , it was reported that a provision was surreptitiously included in that bill which "protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption."  That should have read "protects the manufacturer" (one of which is Monsanto).  If Monsanto is so convinced that GMOs are safe, I can't help wondering why they would be worried about losing law suits.  In their defense, it is costly even for a multi-billion dollar international corporation to defend itself in court.  On the other hand, I can't imagine Congress taking away the right of American citizens to sue car companies that decide to suppress information about safety defects rather than issuing prompt recalls. 

         Monsanto does not want people to sue it, but it is not shy about suing farmers for patent infringement.  According to its own website (http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx), Monsanto has filed lawsuits against American farmers 145 times since 1997.  These suits are prompted by farmers who save seed from GMO crops they have grown in order to plant the seed next season.   Monsanto claims it "catches" most violators as a result of other neighboring farmers reporting the GMO seed savers.  It seems to me that if a farmer discontinues buying Monsanto seed each year, all Monsanto needs to do is send investigators onto the farmer's property to get a crop sample which will be analyzed to see if it is a Monsanto GMO.  This is not limited to the farmers who buy the GMO seeds directly.  The Monsanto GMO pollen can be carried by the wind to neighboring farms who don't want to grow GMO crops.  When Monsanto has found GMO crops grown from the seed these farmers have saved and subsequently planted, Monsanto has pursued legal damages from them, as well.

      The Grocery Manufacturers Association has introduced a bill (HR 4432) in Congress that would block states from enacting GE food labeling laws.  It would give the FDA the exclusive power to decide if a GE food should be labeled.  If the FDA deems the product safe, the manufacturer will not have to label it as a GMO.  (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text)

     Sixty-four countries, including members of the European Union, "enforce consumer 'right to know laws for GE foods" according to the Center for Food Safety    (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/... international-labeling-laws).

 

 NOTE: For a discussion of the GMO right to know and GMO labeling law provisions go to Post F. GMO Labeling - No Excuses at www.classwarfarerg.blogspot.com.
   

C. The Case Against GMO Labeling

(based on www.classwarfarerg.blogspot.com, Post C)

   With the reasonable, I will reason.  With the humane, I will plead.  But with tyrants , I will yield no ground, waste no argument.                                             William Loyd Garrison (paraphrased)

    The purpose of this post is not to reason with nor to argue with the tyrannical  pro-GMO/anti-labeling proponents.   The rationales for not labeling Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food presented by agro-industry scientists and the government (possibly including your own representatives) can sound so convincing as to make one wonder if there is any rational reason for labeling GMO foods.  

    I am aware of three rationales used by GMO proponents.  I will present each rationale and respond to it in order to expose the less than substantial ground on which each rationale rests.  

    Rationale 1.  Those promoting GMOs claim that there is no scientific evidence that GMOs  are harmful to human health. 

   My Response.  I question the claim that GMOs (even those not developed yet) have no negative effects on human health.  Period.  This is not a valid scientific nor logical statement.  True science postulates theories.  When most scientists agree with a theory based on the presented physical evidence, the theory is considered to be valid based on the present available data.  A scientific theory is never considered immutable or unchangeable for the rest of time.  Why?  Because new valid data may be uncovered in the future which might contradict the present available data.  When that happens, what was considered a valid scientific theory is invalidated.  For example, at one time the planet Earth was theorized to be flat.  When evidence was presented that the world was actually round, the Flat Earth theory was invalidated.

        In the 1940's, DDT was considered the best thing since buttered toast.  Less than 40 years later its use was banned in this country due to a public outcry that saved the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine  Falcon from extinction.

      Pre-1960 theory: Artificial food colorings derived from coal tar are inert substances that will not interact with physical bodies.  Red Dye #1 was banned in 1960 as a suspected carcinogen.

      Based on scientific testing, it was theorized that the following prescription drugs were safe for general use:  MERIDIA (banned 2010), ZELNOAM (banned 2007), TEQUIN (banned 2006),  BEXTRA (banned 2005), VIOXX (banned 2004), BAYCOL (banned 2001), PROPOLSIA (banned 2000), REZULIN (banned 2000), RAXAR (banned 1999), REDUX (banned 1997), AVANDIA (use restricted 2010

    Scientists theorizing that a chemical or biological agent is environmentally harmless or safe for human consumption is not a product guarantee.  It is possible that GMOs may one day be banned.  The difference between GMOs and artificial food color is that the presence of that ingredient is listed on the label.  So the consumer can choose to not consume it.  Not so with unlabeled GMOs.

      The claim that GMOs are perfectly harmless is based on the available scientific research published in scientific journals.  Can that published GMO research be trusted? An article in the August, 2009 issue of Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/) questions the objectivity of published GMO research.   This peer-reviewed published research approved by the seed companies as well as research from the companies' own scientists is what the FDA uses to determine if GMOs are safe.  Who in the FDA makes those determinations?  Check out the article at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422.

It documents the various high-ranking Monsanto employees that have been appointed to positions of responsibility in the FDA and the Department of Agriculture by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

One example is described  by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA)   (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/).  Margaret Miller, a Monsanto researcher, contributed to a research report on a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone for the FDA.  Shortly before the report was submitted to the FDA, Miller was hired by the FDA.  Her first job was to review the same report.  The artificial hormone was subsequently approved by the FDA.  The FDA official who decided milk produced from cows given the hormone would not have to be labeled was a former Monsanto lawyer.

       I don't like consuming any man-made chemicals, such as artificial colors, not found in nature.  These artificial chemicals allegedly cause no harm but are listed on food labels.  To not list GMOs because they allegedly cause no harm is contradictory and senseless.

   For some problems there is a scientific solution.  There is also a sensible solution.  They aren't always the same.                                                                                                                                                                        Richard Geiger 

      Rationale 2.  The GMO backers claim that Genetically Modified crops make better use of the limited resources of land, water and fertilizer.

      My Response: In fact, all physical resources on the planet are limited.  The intended implication is that there is not enough land, water and fertilizer to feed everyone on the planet.  But actually, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/), "one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally."  That amounts to 1.3 billion tons annually.  On October 21, 2013 the FAO Director-General Jose' Grozianoda Silva said, "If we reduce food loss and waste to zero it would give us additional food to feed two billion people."  According to FAO 1.15 billion of the earth's people were undernourished from 2011-2013.  So, if all food loss and waste were prevented, there would be more than enough food produced to feed everyone.  The problem of undernourishment is not due to limited resources.  It is due to other factors involving distribution, preservation, pricing, etc.

  

Rationale 3. GMO supporters claim that labeling would result in economic hardship for consumers as well as growers.

      My Response:  That claim, I suspect, is not based on the expense of writing "This food contains GMOs" on each food label.  I understand that GMO proponents are, as of this month (June, 2014), in process of suing the state of Vermont over their mandatory GMO-labeling law.  Their argument is that if each state is permitted to pass such laws it will increase the expense of food manufacturers who will have to make different labels for each state.  They claim that would be inefficient and would increase the cost of food.
     It may occur to you that Vermont may be the first and last state to pass such a law and, if that  is the case, the food manufacturers would have the choice of not selling GMO food in Vermont, thus avoiding the need and extra expense of changing a single label.  But let's give them the benefit of assuming different states will come up with different labeling laws.  The simple solution would be a standardized federal mandatory labeling of all GMOs in food.  The Grocery Manufacturer's Association does not favor that solution.  They want no labeling at all.
     There is also another solution which would prevent inefficiency without the benefit of  a federal law.  Let's say that some states would require the letters GMO to appear in bold letters as "GMO".  Another state wants GMO italicized.  Four other states require the letters to be enlarged: GMO.  The solution?  "GMO" satisfies all three sets of state requirements.  Let's say another state requires that the type of GMO be included.  All labels in all states could include that information.
      The alleged problem of inefficiency in labeling GMOs can be easily overcome.  In fact, according to an article at http://www.anh-usa.org/how-much-will-gmo-labeling-cost-consumers/, the cost of changing food labels is negligible.  So what is the real issue?  Let's face it.  People aren't going to suddenly eat less if GMO labeling is required.  So the problem for GMO backers, growers and users is that their products may be less in demand.  But that is good news for food manufacturers that don't use Genetically Engineered ingredients.  Their products will be more in demand.  The last time I checked we are still supposed to have a free market system in the United States.  That would seem to preclude certain companies from gaining advantages over other companies through government legislation.

      The GMA's campaign to defeat state GMO labeling ballot initiatives and to get Congress to take away states' rights to pass GMO regulations suggests that the  GMA does not believe in a free market system.  If the GMA succeeds, consumers will be deprived of their right to know what they are eating.

      In regard to the claim that GMOs make products more affordable, according to www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/science...,Superweeds  have increased the cost of growing cotton from between $50-$75/hectare a few years ago to $370/hectare.  Growing soybeans in Illinois used to cost $25/hectare.  That has increased to $160/hectare.  That extra expense means higher prices for consumers.

        I think it's ironic that to avoid GMO consumption without labeling, the alternative is to eat organic.  Organic produce, unless one grows it oneself, is more expensive than non-organic.  The irony is that people who are profiting the most from GMOs are the same people who can more easily afford to purchase organically grown food.

        Another related fact is that when GMO pollen blows into an organic farm and pollinates the organic crop, that crop can not be sold as organic.  This factor decreases the available supply of organic produce, as well as doing economic damage to the organic farm.

        Monsanto's ambition is not limited to America.  An article from Rueters announced a plan coordinated by the Obama Administration for companies like Monsanto to invest billions of dollars to "improve" agriculture in Africa.   Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think tank, said, "The problem is all this is based on large-scale commercial agriculture. Who does it benefit? All of these things are supporting the formation of large-scale commercial agriculture, which will hurt small farmers. They could spend far less but focus on providing credit facilities, ensuring open markets and ensuring the rights of small holder farmers." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518us-food-africa-idUSBRE84H12Q20120518)

      This grand plan for Africa will result in wealthy landowners raising large GMO mono crops and Monsanto making additional millions of dollars.  Why Africa?  In Europe, there is strict regulation for GMOs.  The growing and marketing of GMOs in Russia is discouraged by the authorities (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/04/16/russia-completely-bans-monsanto-gmos-china-bans-monsanto-gmos/) and China recently rejected millions of tons of corn grown with Syngenta GMOs (http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_corn_exports_to_China_drop_85_percent_ after_ban_on_GMO_strains_%E2%80%93_industry_report/34432/0/38/38/Y/M.html).

In Conclusion

So, where does that leave us?    We have a large multi-billion dollar multi-national company, Monsanto, that virtually controls the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture making false, misleading and unsupportable claims in order to keep profiting from its patented seeds and agro-chemicals.

     The objective of Monsanto, many believe, is to control human life on the planet. He who controls the food supply, controls life.  If  and when the majority of farmers on earth are all raising GMO produce, they will be completely dependent on Monsanto or a similar company, not

only for the seeds for each growing season but also for the chemical fertilizers/herbicides that are designed to work with those particular seeds.

    

PLU CODES

You may have heard of PLU Codes as a solution to the problem of identifying GMO foods.  These codes do not make GMO labeling unnecessary.  According to www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/05/... PLU codes are four or five digit numbers printed on stickers that are placed on fresh fruits and vegetables for the purpose of aiding in sorting and retail check-out.  If the 5 digit code starts with 3 or 4, it indicates that produce was "probably" grown conventionally (using synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, etc. but not genetically engineered).  If the five digit code starts with an "8", it indicates GMOs.  In 2010, corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, papaya, and squash were the only GMOs being widely sold, according to this article.  Today, that list would include beets and alfalfa.

       The problems with relying on PLU codes for GMO identification are the following:

1) The codes are used on fresh produce, not on processed food.

2) Not all produce is coded.

3) The program is voluntary. 

4) #3 means that GMO growers can use a 3 or 4 instead of an 8 on GMO produce.

                  

FEEL FREE TO MAKE COPIES OF THE GMO HANDOUTS AND SHARE THEM FREELY WITH OTHERS. RG

                                                                                                                              

D. GMO LABELING = A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE

       According to Causes.com, "the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto's Evil Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about what's in your food.

     "The GMA plans to sue Vermont to overturn its new GMO labeling law, H.112. And it's pushing a bill in Congress that would not only overturn every state's right to enact a GMO labeling law, but also legalize the practice of labeling GMO foods 'natural.'"  The Vermont suit has been filed.

      These actions of the GMA have one purpose.  To silence and make impotent the critics of genetically engineered food.  Either we have the constitutional right to live freely and pursue happiness or we don't.  Being as healthy as possible allows one to exercise that right. The GMA does not think you should have the right to decide what is best for the health of your family.  We know we can't depend on government to make good decisions about our health nor about what is in the best interest of the Common Good.  The government gives private industry a free pass to use the public as human guinea pigs in whatever technological innovation that industry thinks will increase their profits.  Only when it is scientifically verified that an innovation is doing grievous harm does the government do anything to stop it.  Now the GMA wants to take away your right to opt out of the GMO experiment by not letting you know what foods contain GMO ingredients.

       This also has a negative effect on the Common Good because of "Superweeds" (www.ucsusas.org/news/press_release/superweeds-overrun-farmlands...) that are resulting in more polluted farm runoff and higher food prices.  There is also evidence that GM DNA has jumped from farm fields into the wild plant population outside of farms (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/10canola.html?_r=0).

    The Human Rights issue is a simple one.  Should people have a right to know if the food they are eating contains GMOs or has been produced through means of genetic engineering.
     I will compare this issue to skydiving.  An imperfect analogy but the best I've got at the moment.
Some people are not meant to skydive.  They may have an intuition about it.  Sky-diving enthusiasts will never understand those people.  They will insist your chances of not suffering any ill-effects are 99.5% or whatever.  If I were to force someone who is not meant to skydive, to do it because the danger is minuscule, I would be violating their basic rights. 
       Monsanto and then Grocery Manufacturers Association wants to coerce people into eating food whose genes have been artificially manipulated through banning mandatory GMO labeling.  This is abusive and a violation of human rights.
       I would feel the same way if the FDA approved adding sawdust from rare tropical forest trees to processed foods as a fiber supplement.  Even if the FDA deemed it safe to eat, I would remain morally bound to boycott that food.  I could not do that if the food containing the offensive ingredient was not labeled as such.  People who don't care have a right to not know what is in the food they eat.  All they have to do is not listen to the information and not read food label information.  People who do care should likewise have the right to know what the food they eat contains.    

                                         

 WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

    There is a pledge you can take at Causes.com sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to boycott the companies that belong to the GMA.  More than 20,000 people had signed it as of 7/4/14.

      According to the OCA, GMA member "corporations spent about $68 million just to defeat GMO ballot initiatives in California (Prop 37) and Washington State (I-522). And they continue to fight against your right to know by supporting the GMA's latest efforts to overturn states' rights to pass GMO labeling laws. 

      "Here are the worst culprits .... and the amount they spent just to defeat Prop 37 and I-522:"

PepsiCo ($4.8M)

Coca-Cola ($3.2M)

Nestle ($3M)

Kraft/Mondelez ($2.4M)

General Mills ($2.1M)

ConAgra Foods ($2M)

Kellogg's ($1.1M)

Campbell's ($980k)

Smucker's ($900k)

Hershey's ($880k)

Bimbo Bakeries ($560k)

McCormick ($400k)

Post E, the next one on this site, is a list I prepared of  what seem the most familiar of the 300 GMA member companies and some familiar brands of each.  This way you can contribute to the boycott even if you can't sign the pledge.

GOING  ABOVE AND BEYOND

Some of us feel the need to do more than boycott these companies.  I have written letters to several firms to let them know how disappointed I am not to purchase their brands anymore until and unless they renounce GMA membership and publicly support consumers' right to know what they are eating.  You might encourage your friends, neighbors and co-workers to join the boycott.  I have written my elected representatives to express my support for universal mandatory GMO labeling.  One might consider writing/Emailing one's appreciation and promise of support to those companies that do not appear on the GMA list and which hopefully have not spent any profits trying to keep us from knowing what we are eating.  One might even encourage organizations to which one belongs or with which one asssociates to participate in the boycott.

If your organization would like to go on record as supporting GMO Right to Know, you can go to http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

YOU ARE WELCOME TO COPY ANY OF THE POSTS IN THIS INFORMATION PACKET AND SHARE THEM WITH THOSE NOT ON LINE.

E. EXPANDED GMA BOYCOTT LIST & F. UNLABLED GMO FUTURE

prepared by R. Geiger
                                        

There is a list of 300 companies belonging to the Grocery Manufacturers Association Lobby which opposes GMO labeling at www.boycottlist.org/infographic.html.  Those of us who favor GMO labeling of foods have been encouraged to boycott these companies. I have listed those companies that are most familiar to me and some of their more familiar brands.  I was surprised to find out how many different brands some of these companies produce.   Proctor and Gamble, for example, produces more than 35 well-advertised brands, including Pampers, Pantene shampoo, and Pepto-Bismal. Hopefully this list can make our boycott more effective.

Bayer Crop Science - Bayer, Clothiandin, Imidaclopridr, Pledge, S.C. Johnson, Windex

Bimbo Bakeries - Arnold (bread), Ball Park (buns), Brown Berry, Earthgrains bread, Entemann's, Sara Lee, Stroehmann

Blue Diamond Growers - Almond Breeze, Blue Diamond, Nut Thins

Bumblebee Foods - Bumblebee, King Oscar

Campbell's - Campbell, Goldfish, Milano, Pepperidge Farm, Plum Organics, Prego, SpaghettiOs, Swanson, V8 Beverages, Wolfgang Puck organic soups

Cargill - Diamond Crystal salt, Honeysuckle White Turkey, Truvia

Chiquita Fast Express, Inc.- Chiquita, Fresh Express Salads

The Clorox Company - Burt's Bees, Clorox, Formula 409, Fresh Step, Green Works, Handi-Wipes, Liquid Plumr, Pine-Sol, S.O.S., Tilex

Coca-Cola - Bacardi, Barq's, Coke, Dannon, Dasani, Dr. Pepper, Evian, Fanta, Five Alive, Fresca, Fruitopia, Fuze, Hi-C, Honest Tea, Mello Yello, Minute Maid, Odwalla, Powerade, Schweppes, Sprite, TaB
 
Colgate-Palmolive - AJAX, Colgate, Dermassage, Fabuloso, Gear, Irish Spring, Lady Speed Stick, Murphy Oil Soap, Palmolive, Skin Bracer, Softsoap

ConAgra Foods - Alexia, Andy Capp's, Banquet, Bertelli, Blue Bonnet, Chef Boyardee, Crunch Munch, Dennison's, Egg Beaters, Fiddle Faddle, Fleischmann's, Hebrew National, Hunt's, Healthy Choice, Jiffy Pop, Kid Cuisine, La Choy, Libby's, Manwich, Marie Calender's, Orville Redenbocker's, PAM, Pam organic cooking sprays, Parkay, P.E. Chang's, Penrose, Peter Pan, Ranch Style, Reddi Wip, Rosarita, Slim Jim, Swiss Miss,Van Camp's, Wesson, Wolf Brand Chili

DelGrosso Foods, Inc.- Del Grosso

Del Monte Foods - Del Monte

Dole Packaged Foods - Dole
 
Dupont and Solae - Dupont, Teflon

Georgia-Pacific, LLC - Angel Soft, Brawny, Dixie, Georgia-Pacific, Quilted Northern, Sparkle, Vanity Fair


General Mills - Betty Crocker, Bisquick, Bugles, Cascadian Farm, Cheerios, Chex, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Fiber One, Fruit Snacks, General  Mills, Glen, Gold Medal, Good Earth, Green Giant, Häagen-Dazs, Helper, Kix, Larabar, Lucky Charms, Macaroni Grill, Muir Glen, Nature Valley, Old El Paso, Pillsbury, Progresso, Total, Trix, Wheaties, Yoplait

Godiva Chocolatier - Godiva

Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc.- Goya

Hershey's - Almond Joy, Breath Savers, Brookside,Bubble Yum (gum), Cadbury, Dagoba, Good & Plenty, Heath, Hershey, Ice Breakers, Jolly Rancher, Milk Duds, Mounds, Reese's, Pay Day, Rolo, Take 5, Twizzler's, Whatchacallit, Whoppers Malted Milk Balls, York Peppermint Pattie, Zagnut, Zero

Hewlett Packard Co. - laptops, tablets, toner, cartridges, printers, monitors, ink, printers, desktops, etc.


H.J.Heinz - Classico, Heinz, Lea & Perrins, Ore-Ida, Smartones, Weight Watchers

Kellogg's - Bear Naked, Crispix, Crunch Mania, Fruit Loops, Fruit Snacks, Gardenburger, Kashi, Kellogg, Morningstar Farms, Mueslix (cereal), Pop Tarts, Product 19, Famous Amos, Pringles, Scooby-Doo!, Special K, Smorz

Kraft - A.1., Athenos, Boca Burgers, Caprisun, Claussen, Country Time, Cracker Barrel, Crystal Light, Green and Black's, Jell-o, Kool-Aid, Kraft, Lunchables,Maxwell House, Miracle Whip, Oscar Mayer, Planters

Land O' Lakes, Inc. - Land O' Lakes

McCormick - Kitchen Basics, Lawry's, McCormick, Old Bay, Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen, Zatarain's

McDonald's Corporation - fast food restaurants

Merck-Coppertone, Dr.Scholl's, Claritin, A&D, Fosamax, Miralax, Nasonex, Oxytrol, Lisonopril, Zocor

Mondelez - belVita, Boca Burgers, Caprisun,  Cadbury, Chips Ahoy!, Dentyne, Green and Black's, Holney Maid, Maxwell House, Nutter  Butter, Oreo, PREMIUM, Ritz, Stride, Tang, Trident, Triscuit, Wheat Thins

Monsanto - Roundup, Asgrow, De Ruiter seeds, Acceleron

Morton Salt - Morton

Nestle - Alpo, Beneful, Boost, Butterfinger, Carnation, Cerelac, Chef, Chef Michael, Coffee-Mate, Crunch, DiGiorno, Dreyer's, Fancy Feast, Felix, Friskies, Gerber, Gourmet (cat food), Haagen-Daz, Hot Pockets, KitKat, Lean Cuisine, NesCafe, Nesquik, Nestle, Nestra, Perrier, Poland Spring,  Purina, S. Pelligrino, Stouffer's, Sweet Leaf tea, Toll House, Tombstone (pizza), Wonka

PepsiCo - Aquafina, Brisk, Cheetos, Doritos, Frito-Lay, Gatorade, IZZE, Lays, Lipton, Mt. Dew, Naked Juice, Pepsi, Quaker, Ruffles, 7-UP, Sierra Mist, Tostitos, Tropicana

Proctor and Gamble Co. - Ariel, Bounce, Charmin, Cascade, Crest, Covergirl, Clairol, Dawn, Downy, Duracell,  Febreze, Fixodent, Gain, Gillette, IAMS, Ivory, Head and Shoulders, Herbal Essence, Olay, Old Spice, Oral-B, Luvs, Mach 3, Nice 'n Easy, Pampers, Pantene, Pepto-Bismal, Prilosec, Proctor and Gamble, Puffs, Safegaurd, Scope, Secret, Swifter, Tide, Venus, Vidal Sasson, Vicks, ZZZQuil

Safeway, Inc. - the grocery store.

Smucker's - Dunkin Donuts, Folgers, Jif, R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz organic, Smuckers Organic

Starbucks -  Starbucks® coffee, tea, brewers, gifts, drinkware and logo merchandise.

Sun-Maid Growers of Calif. - Sun-Maid dried raisins, prunes, dates, cherries, etc.

Sunny Delight Beverages Co.- Elations, Fruit 2O, Sunny D, Very Fine,

Syngenta-Dow Agro Sciences - Dow, Golden Harvest, Thiamethoxam

3M Company - Tape products, floor tiles, mats, vacuums, accessories, etc.

NOTE:  There are other choices.  For example, Giant Eagle brand products available at Giant Eagle Supermarkets, Aldi brand products available at Aldis, and DG brand products available at  Dollar General are some of the many selections not on the boycott list.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:  You have all the info you need to participate.  Why read another post?  This next one is for those of us who are uninformed or not committed to the GMA Boycott.  The next post explains the importance/significance of boycotting large corporations which fail to support human rights and the Common Good.  This next post is a warning based on history, political analysis, ethics, philosophy, economics, science, and social research.  Ignore it at your own risk or rather the the risk to the well-being of your children and grandchildren, born and unborn.

F. UNLABELED GMO FUTURE
by rich geiger 

   You have probably heard the saying "History repeats itself".  And "the more things change, the more they remain the same".  If there is truth in those sayings, I wonder if it isn't due to the unchanging character of human nature.  Even though our scientific knowledge and technological achievements are evidence of our increased understanding of the physical world, people still abuse one another and continue to attempt individual and group conflict resolution via violent means and  human nature still tends to be greedy and self-centered.  Those latter traits seem to be more pronounced or manifest in people who are wealthier [see Plutocracy Now!, Section C (Psychology of the Wealthy)]

1. The Robber Barons

      There is a book by Howard Zinn entitled History is a Weapon, the eleventh chapter of which is entitled "Robber Barons and Rebels".  The robber barons were people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Frick, and Vanderbilt who became rich and successful, or, more often, richer and more successful by using advances in industrial technology to build large business enterprises through unscrupulous means.  "Unscrupulous" refers to keeping wages low, maintaining high prices, choking out competition, using government subsidies.  This took place in America during the late 1800s to the early 1900s.
       Some will argue that the efforts of the robber barons resulted in the U.S. becoming a world power which would "save" the free world first during World War I and again during World War II.
If this argument is designed to redeem the decision makers of that day or justify their actions, I think the argument is weak at best.   First of all, this argument ignores a principle of morality, namely that the end never justifies the means.  Secondly, let's look at the means or the cost of this nation's relatively rapid rise to greatness on the world stage.  There is (1) the wholly unjust and abusive acquisition of land from Native Americans as well as the cruel, unjustifiable subjugation and segregation of the tribes to reservations, tracts of land no one else wanted at the time, completed by 1870. Why?  In order to attract and then placate more European immigrants with land grants and to guarantee safe passage for the expanding railroad industry.  The price also entails (2) the abusive treatment of the working class such as unhealthful/unsafe working and living conditions created by factories and mills for low-paid immigrant laborers.  Immigrants like the Chinese who built the railroads were forced into virtual slavery due to their wages not exceeding the price of the room and board supplied by their employers.  Thousands of workers were killed or injured in labor strikes that attempted to force their employers to treat them more reasonably.  Then there is (3) the environmental price.  One example of this is the passenger pigeon which was hunted to extinction by 1900 with the aid of the railroads and the telegraph.  By 1883, nearly all bison in the United States had been killed.  They would have died out completely except for the efforts of citizens not employed by the government.

2. Social Conditioning of the Masses

      Why didn't more people rebel or find the price of progress too steep too pay?  Many people were evidently more concerned with racial and ethnic conflicts than with cooperating for the common cause of justice.  Schools, churches, etc. also played a part in helping the robber barons get richer at  the expense of the masses.  They indoctrinated the common people with the idea that the Rich were better off financially because the Rich were honest and moral.  They taught the common people that if one was poor it was because one was being punished for one's sins.
       Zinn mentions Russel Conwell, a Yale Law School graduate who traveled around the country delivering his lecture entitled "Acres of Diamonds".  Here is an excerpt Zinn cites in his book:     
     
" I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich.... The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly .. . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. That is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men. ...
... I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathised with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins ... is to do wrong.... let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings. ..."
  
      I wonder how many succeeding generations Conwell has influenced.  I remember being taught those sorts of beliefs as a child.  I have been subsequently blessed with the ability and desire to question the "truths" I learned as a child.  Not everyone is willing to endure the discomfort of questioning what they were taught by parents, teachers, siblings, etc.  As long as Conwell's teachings get unquestioningly passed from generation to generation, the rich and powerful will more easily control the masses while increasing their own power and wealth at the expense of the rest of us.      
      Ever wonder why you don't hear in-depth discussions of real issues such as Plutocracy on mainstream radio and TV?  If you have any doubt about the existence of the Plutocracy of the United States, I suggest you read www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com.  The rich and powerful control the main commercial radio and TV stations in this country.  It seems they would also love to seize control of the Internet.

3. The Supreme Court

       The recent pro-business decisions issued by the Supreme Court indicates the upper Upper class's influence is felt there as well.   This is not unique in terms of U.S. history.  Chapter 11 of Zinn's book quotes a New York banker's 1897 toast to the Supreme Court. "I give you, gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States-guardian of the dollar, defender of private property, enemy of spoliation, sheet anchor of the Republic." Sounds like today's Court.  But I would change the last phrase to "sheet anchor of the Plutocracy".

4. Presidential Politics

      There are parallels between the robber baron period and the present in regard to presidential politics as well.  According to Zinn, Henry Adams, a literary commentator at the time of Cleveland's presidential campaign, wrote,

"We are here plunged in politics funnier than words can express. Very great issues are involved.. . . But the amusing thing is that no one talks about real interests. By common consent they agree to let these alone. We are afraid to discuss them. Instead of this the press is engaged in a most amusing dispute whether Mr. Cleveland had an illegitimate child and did or did not live with more than one mistress." 

Zinn observes that "the presidential election itself had avoided real issues; there was no clear understanding of which interests would gain and which would lose if certain policies were adopted."  That brings to mind presidential candidate Obama's saying in 2007, “Here’s what I’ll do as president … We’ll let folks know if their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying,”

(http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/barack-obama-gmo-labeling-102266.html#ixzz37f78wIqS).  After being elected President, Obama appointed several ex-Monsanto employees to key positions in the FDA and the USDA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422.).  Two of those ex-Monsanto employees were responsible for the approval of Monsanto's Genetically Modified (GM) bovine growth hormone and the decision not to label milk containing that hormone (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/).  The Obama administration approved the unrestricted growth of genetically engineered alfalfa.  In March, 2013, Obama signed a bill into law with a provision that made suing GMO seed companies for health claims illegal (see "Critics Slam Obama For 'Protecting' Monsanto" ).

      These actions interfere with the human right to know what we are eating and are opposed to maintaining environmental quality.  Who controls the executive branch?  Review candidate Obama's campaign promise to let us know.  Then review what happened after he became President.  The winner is Monsanto.  The loser is the American public.
      The sad thing is that Monsanto would have won even if Romney or McCain had beaten Obama.

After being elected, President Cleveland assured industrialists "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions." 

Evidently some large corporations/industries contribute huge sums to both Republicans and Democrats so that they can influence whichever side wins.  That explains why no "serious disturbance of existing conditions" occurs.
       Hilary Clinton, the great female hope to many, is a big well-known Monsanto/GMO supporter.

5. The Two Party System

      It seems to me that the two-party political system in this country is a dog and pony show the purpose of which is to distract the populace from what is actually going on.  How often have you heard a politician address the widening gap between the super rich and the not rich?  You think that's because it isn't real?  Check out the Plutocracy Now! blog, Section A (Economic Inequality). Studies have shown that our federal congressmen make decisions in accordance with the desires, attitudes, and values of their Upper Class constituents [see "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality" by Thomas Hayes in Political Science Quarterly, Sept., 2013 issue (prq.sagepub.com)].  I would wager that if you made copies of "Historic Repetition and Soylent Green" and sent them to your congressional representatives that not one of them would read it. (The NSA, however, probably already has an electronic copy filed away.)
     Politicians in both parties are beholding to the corporations that fund their political campaigns.  Increased drama in the apparent conflict between Democrats and Republicans, I suspect, is an indication of how desperate they are to distract us from what is really happening.  Take, for example, House Speaker Boehner's announcement of his intention to sue President Obama over the EPA's proposed carbon emissions standards for coal-powered electric generation plants.  Felt like "overkill" to me.  According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal (www. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) posted on 1/22/14 by David Newby entitled "Fast track on Trade Agreement is Wrong Track", the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (TPPTA) being secretly negotiated would give businesses the legal power to sue the government over regulations that interfere with their ability to compete with businesses from other countries which also sign the agreement.  From what I've read, I suspect that, under the TPPTA, if  a foreign company not subject to the same environmental or safety regulations by which an American competitor is legally bound, performs more successfully than the American company, the American company can sue the Government for lost profits.  If the American company can prove that it lost business because of the added expense of government regulations, the government would be found legally liable.  After the government lost a number of these cases it would not be long before legislators would be clambering to take credit for lowering environmental and work safety standards.  In other words, the EPA standards will never have a chance to go into effect if the TPPTA is ratified by the United States.
       This is the catch.  President Obama wants the TPPTA, which has been described as NAFTA on steroids, to be approved ASAP.  So both Boehner and Obama want what is best for Big Business but they create the impression that their positions are diametrically opposed.
      The politicians are controlled by the rich and powerful Puppet Masters.  The Puppet Masters direct the mock serious melodramatic conflict in Washington, D.C. between the Republicans and Democrats.  There are also the apparently sincere Progressive politicians who promote slightly more rational solutions to the country's problems.  The Puppet Masters may view the Progressives as providing a measure of temporary comic relief but, at the same time, the Puppet Masters also evidently feel threatened by them as they are spending millions to try to replace them.
      We, who understand what is really going on and who want to change it, would be foolish and perhaps remiss not to vote for professed Progressive candidates.  But it would also be a mistake for us to depend on them or any politician or group of politicians "to put things right".

 6. Evil and the Power of the People

      One of my favorite quotes is by an Irish statesman, Edmund Burke.  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  It makes me wonder if there is such an animal as a good person who doesn't care enough to oppose evil?  Perhaps it would be a liberal Republican. For a clear idea of what I mean by "evil" in the context of this post, think about the movie "Soylent Green".
It describes a future in which the world is overpopulated, beautiful natural open space has been eradicated, where only the wealthiest can eat fresh food of any kind.  The Soylent Green future = evil.
       The only time politicians act in the best interest of the Common Good and of human rights when such action is contraindicated by the interests of the rich and powerful is when the populace expresses their power.  I'm not referring to the power of the ballot box.  Even if one is motivated to vote an official out of office, by the time the election comes around, one will probably have forgotten that determination or the official will have done something favorable in the meantime.
        I am referring to the populace expressing their power by a willingness to make the necessary sacrifices in terms of convenience, in terms of the quality of goods and services, etc. in order to boycott those corporations which fail to support the Common Good.  A company fails to support the Common Good by disrespecting human rights; by paying its employees less than a healthful living wage [see www.equaleconomy.blogspot.com, Section C (An Alternative Solution), #1. (A Healthful Lifestyle)]; by producing synthetic chemicals and unnecessary pollutants that have a negative impact on human health and/or on the environment; by depending on suppliers who likewise fail to support the Common Good.
     Each person who cares needs to ask her/himself at the end of each day, "Is the world closer to the future of Soylent Green and if so, was I complicit in that advance?"  As much as we support these anti-Common Good corporations with our purchases, that's how complicit we are in enabling the Soylent Green future.  None of us is perfect.  I don't expect anyone to be 100% non-complicit all the time.  It may be helpful for us to be more self-aware of how much we are contributing to the problem (i.e. hastening the arrival of the Soylent Green future) and how much to the solution (i.e. preserving as much of the Common Good as possible).  If someone from the upper 1%  were to watch "Soylent Green"they would be able to remain quite emotionally detached.  The position they and their descendents would occupy in the Soylent Green future appears relatively advantageous and comfortable in the movie.  In other words, we shouldn't expect the rich and powerful to lift a finger to prevent a Soylent Green future.

7. The Cost of Greed

      This is no longer 1870 nor 1910.  But the mindset, values, etc. of the rich and powerful seem to be the same today as they were back then.  Their goal is the same - to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible.  There is always a price to be paid for the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.  Section one discussed the cost paid around the beginning of the twentieth century.  The COST now, as then, is paid in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation.  A few examples of current costs are the disappearing Monarch butterflies (http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/plight-of-monarch-butterfly.html), the decrease in the population of various whale species (http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/whale), the out of control human population growth, the collapsing bee colonies (mvgazette.com/news/2014/02/20/risky-business-herbicides?k=vg53ac72eb33464)., global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer, the increase in chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, lung cancer).  Some people deny that human activity caused these problems or that humans can do anything to mitigate the problems.  If that is the case, there is no sense in trying to do anything differently.

       Cutting back on pollution of the air, water and land; decreasing unhealthful and artificial food ingredients; decreasing carbon emissions; eliminating so-called ozone-destroying chemical emissions; cutting back on lethal agro-chemical applications; eliminating pesticides supposedly toxic to bees.  Politically conservative thinkers, Republicans in general, millionaires and billionaires believe that those changes would result in a negative effect on the American economy.  What really concerns these people is that making those life-sustaining measures would have a negative impact on the economy of the rich and powerful.  In other words, it would slow down their growing accumulation of wealth. Whatever happens, the rate at which the rest of us, in general, will continue to get poorer and less politically powerful will be determined by the rate at which the upper Upper Class gets wealthier and more politically powerful.  If the upper Uppers constituted 50% of the country's population instead of .5%, their concern for the nation's economy might seem more valid.  But if 50% of Americans were millionaires and billionaires, the other 50% would have to be living in abject poverty.  Do you wonder if there is enough wealth in this country for an adult in every household to have a job that would pay a healthful living wage?  "Does This Sound Like Nazi Propaganda?" addresses that issue.
        Global warming, thinning of the ozone, increasing pollution, increases in chronic diseases, growing gap between the haves and the have-nots are all real problems, regardless of who or what is responsible for them.  If something is not done to solve them, human life as we know it, will be gone forever.  And the "life" that replaces it is not going to be qualitatively better.  If you would like to see what the replacement will be like, watch the movie Soylent Green.

 8. GMOs and Passivity  

      Unchecked corporate power and greed are carrying us into the future of Soylent Green.  Are most Americans willing to passively go along on this journey by allowing corporations more and more power?  Why do I think that may be the case?  There are many pledges one can take via the Internet.  I will focus on two of those.  Pledge #1 has been on there for months.  It asks people to agree to boycott companies that oppose GMO labeling.  Pledge #2, a more recent one, asks people to boycott Hobby Lobby, a national chain of stores that won a Supreme Court case.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that  a closely held corporation has a right to deny health care insurance coverage for contraceptives for their female employees on the grounds of the owner's religious beliefs. 
      Pledge  #1 is directed against large corporations that are spending millions to  deny the American public the right to know what is in the food they eat every day.   Pledge #2 is directed against a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores whose owner is morally opposed to enabling his female employees to use contraceptives.  While his attitude, from a Christian viewpoint, seems to be in opposition to the Gospel principle of agapao, unconditional brotherly love, he is not motivated by profit as are the corporations of Pledge #1.  Nor is the female employees' freedom to attain the desired contraceptives by means other than company-funded insurance being threatened.
       I signed pledge #2 because I don't agree with the Supreme Court's philosophy that corporations are people and therefore entitled to the same rights as individual citizens. This philosophy is contributing greatly to corporate America's power to destroy the quality of our lives by advancing the Soylent Green future.
     When I compared the responses to these two petitions I was surprised.  By July 4 of this year, 20,000 people had signed Pledge #1 whereas by July 1, 200,000 people had signed Pledge #2.  I keep wondering why would at least 180,000 people be willing to boycott Hobby Lobby but be reluctant to boycott the other corporations helping to create the Soylent Green future? 

   One possible explanation for the reluctance of 180,000 Internet users not to sign Pledge #1 is that, even though they have no friends or family employed by Hobby Lobby, they do have friends and/or family employed by one or more of the corporations targeted by Pledge #1.  If you are such a person reading this, I'd like to address you directly.  Do you realize that if enough people committed to boycotting the corporation where your friend or family member works, that the corporation would likely give in before having to lay off employees?   The corporation would renounce its membership in the Grocery Manufacturers Association lobby and publicly support consumers' right to know what they are eating.  At that point those who had pledged to boycott could resume buying the company's products and the company jobs would remain as secure as before the boycott.
    If, on the other hand, the corporation chose not to do the right thing and there were layoffs because of decreased demand, do you realize that would be the fault of the corporation - not the boycotters? 
     Lastly, I wonder if you had a family with children and you worked for a corporation whose actions were going to be partially responsible for the creation of the Soylent Green future of your children and your grandchildren, would you be grateful to your friends and family for not trying to hold that company to account? 

     The die has been cast.  The writing is on the wall.
_______________________________________________________________________________

THE WALL

 The Cost of Unchecked Corporate Greed

Age of the Robber Barons

$ Persecution of Native Americans

$ Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon  

$ Near Extinction of the American Bison

$ Corporate Abuse of Workers

$ Inflated Prices for Consumers 
$ Government subsidies for private businesses 

Present

$ American Super Rich getting richer and increasing in numbers
$ American non-Super Rich also increasing in numbers but with decreasing net worth [www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com, Section A (Economic Inequality), #2 (Net Worth)]
$ Declining Monarch butterfly population

$ Collapsing bee colonies

$ Increased herbicide use

$ Basic human rights like the right to know what we are eating

$ Deteriorating infrastructure (http:/www.infrastructurereportcard.org/)

$ Higher prices

$ Unemployment

$ Declining quality of education

$ Unnecessary air, water and ground pollution

$  Rising ocean levels

$ Declining populations of various whale species

$ Increased chronic diseases

$ Excessive population

Soylent Green Future

$ Fresh food only for the wealthy

$ Long lines to get processed nutrients and water

$ Energy shortages

$ Higher prices

$ Too many people

$ Increased disease and disabilities

$ Declining education

$ Housing shortages

$ Chronic unemployment

$ Death of the oceans

$ Natural landscapes and open green space eradicated

$ Massive species extinctions

$ No more glaciers nor polar ice

$ Coastal cities flooded

$ Widespread poverty

______________________________________________________________________________