House Bills Introduced to Compel Mandatory Labeling for GMO Foods
Written by Beth Clay   
Monday, 12 March 2012 05:00

Ask Your Representative to Co-Sponsor HR 3553

In December 2011, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced three pieces of legislation to address genetically engineered food/seed issues. 

H.R. 3553: Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act

H.R. 3554: Genetically Engineered Safety Act

H.R. 3555: Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act

Congressman Kucinich has introduced similar bills several times since 1999. At present there is no matching Senate bill. However, Senator Barbara Boxer of California has previously introduced mandatory labeling legislation and currently is building awareness and support for mandatory labeling through a Dear Colleague letter

For more than two decades consumers have pushed back against food industry attempts to place genetically modified foods in the family grocery cart. Originally referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO or GM), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often uses the term “bioengineered” and legislators and others have adopted the term genetically engineered (GE). Throughout this article, the various terms GE, GM, and GMO will all be referred to with the acronym GE.   

There are dozens of groups that are working in a loose coalition to suspend the approval, commercialization, and release of any new genetically engineered crops and animal species until or unless they are thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. Additionally, these groups support moves to require foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients to be clearly labeled.

Congressman Kucinich has provided the following bullet points as an outline of the 3-piece framework of legislation: 

I. HR 3553: The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act:

Requires food companies to label all foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered (GE) material and requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Senior Author of MMR Paper, John Walker-Smith, Wins Appeal
Written by The Canary Party   
Wednesday, 07 March 2012 16:13

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The Canary Party: Contact Ginger Taylor 855-722-5282 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s co-author on controversial Lancet “MMR paper” completely exonerated of all charges of professional misconduct

World renowned pediatric gastroenterologist Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal today against the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK, although he had already retired in 2001 — six years before the GMC trial even began.

Justice John Mitting ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.” The verdict restores Walker-Smith’s name to the medical register and his reputation to the medical community. This conclusion is not surprising, as the GMC trial had no actual complainants, no harm came to the children who were studied, and parents supported Walker-Smith and Wakefield through the trial, reporting that their children had medically benefited from the treatment they received at the Royal Free Hospital.

While John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not — and was therefore unable to mount an appeal in the high court. This year, however, Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of “fraud.” The suit is currently underway in Texas, where Wakefield now lives. The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.

In 1998 the Lancet published a case series on twelve children receiving treatment for bowel dysfunction at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The paper called for further study of a possible association between bowel disease and developmental delay, including cases of autism. It also noted that eight of the children’s gastrointestinal and autistic symptoms began shortly after they received the MMR vaccination. The verdict today raises questions about whether or not the Lancet should have retracted the paper after the GMC decision, as the reasons for its retraction have now been contradicted by the judge’s decision.

The thirteen original co-authors of the 1998 Lancet case series were members of the Royal Free’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group. In 2004, under pressure from the British medical establishment, ten of the co-authors signed a letter retracting an interpretation of the paper that it proved that vaccines caused autism, which the paper never actually claimed in the first place. John Walker-Smith, Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Simon Murch were subsequently brought up on misconduct charges before the GMC. The proceedings resulted in Walker-Smith and Wakefield being found guilty and being “struck off” the medical register, while Dr. Murch retained his status as a physician. Wakefield was then vilified by corporate media and by bloggers eager to repeat scandal and engage in industry protectionism, rather than investigate the complicated facts of the story.

Today, almost 14 years after the paper was published, the high court determined that John Walker-Smith was innocent of the wrongdoing alleged by the GMC. Judge Mitting reported that the GMC, “on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”

British parents from the group CryShame, which includes parents of the Lancet 12, issued a statement saying that they “welcome with immense relief the end of the eight year ordeal of Prof John Walker-Smith and the quashing of all substantive charges against him in the High Court, and wish him their heartfelt congratulations at finally clearing his name.”

“Though justice has finally prevailed for Prof. Walker-Smith, the damage done to him and his colleagues has been incalculable,” said Mark Blaxill, chairman of the Canary Party. “The UK government must investigate the corruption in theGMC, which has severely damaged the reputations of good, honest doctors. Most of all, it’s outrageous that Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified by government officials, vaccine manufacturers and physician organizations, and that the media has accepted these unfounded accusations uncritically.”

“It’s time that we started treating responsible parents as reliable witnesses to serious adverse reactions to medical procedures such as vaccination,” said Jennifer Larson, president of the Canary Party. “The work that Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital did with the Lancet 12 was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained, and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist writing for a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. Meanwhile, the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.”

“It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield,” said Ginger Taylor, executive director of the Canary Party. “A judge has now ruled that the GMC hearings were a farce. Parents are waiting for journalists to find their spine and start some honest reporting on the character assassination of doctors that is blocking medical treatments for vaccine injured children, and the role that GSK and Merck may be playing to protect their profits on the MMR vaccine. The Canary Party honors and stands by doctors of integrity like Prof. Walker-Smith, who continue to fight and defend their hard-won reputations for going the extra mile to investigate and improve the chronic, difficult-to-treat cases that now permeate our society.”

The full court ruling can be read here.

Autism Media Channel reports on the story from London:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Repeal California AB499
Written by The Canary Party   
Friday, 02 March 2012 19:06

Press Release

Contact: Ginger Taylor Phone: (855) 711-5282  Email mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Parents, not children, must make health care decisions
Repeal California AB499

Long Beach, CA, March 2nd, 2012: Repealing California’s HPV vaccine law AB499 will restore rights, and remove corporate influence from families’ medical planning.

Vaccine safety advocates and parental rights groups are urgently working to undo the damage begun last October when the HPV vaccine bill AB499 was quietly passed in the legislature.

Right now in California, children as young as twelve can be injected with an unproven and costly HPV vaccine linked to 24,000+ adverse events -without the knowledge or permission of that child’s parents. Such a student is considered by state legislators to be able to critically read and understand a 30-page Gardasil medical product information sheet without parental guidance, and yet may not even obtain an aspirin from the school nurse without the express written consent of a parent.

The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists injuries associated with this vaccine. According to vaccine safety advocates SaneVax Inc., an analysis of VAERS data on HPV vaccines through January 15, 2012 shows that 24,832 total adverse events have been reported, with almost 10,000 victims rushing to an emergency room. 3,307 events were serious, 472 were life-threatening, 817 girls have been disabled, and there have been 108 reported deaths.

These injured HPV vaccine recipients have suffered seizures, brain damage, and autoimmune disorders such as lupus, thrombosis, paralysis, stroke, and death.

To make matters worse, California’s AB499 may violate federal law.

“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 requires parents be given a CDC Vaccine Information Sheet before a vaccine is administered,” said Ginger Taylor, Executive Director of the Canary Party. “If parents don’t know that the child is given the vaccine, and does not get the VIS beforehand, federal law is violated.”

The 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act also removes the right to sue after an injury. If a patient suffers health problems after vaccination, it’s up to them to prove it to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – where 80% of cases are thrown out. If parents do not know a vaccine has been administered, then no such correlation can ever be made, no medical investigation can be undertaken and no claim for vaccine injury can even be filed.

“Parents’ rights have been bypassed in favor of profiteering,” said Wayne Rhode of the Canary Party. “In California a child can go to school in the morning, be coerced into getting vaccinated for a disease they likely will never get, and come home disabled for life with a vaccine injury that government and the manufacturer will simply deny.”

HPV vaccine makers Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have made campaign donations to a number of California legislators, including three members of the Judiciary Committee. Global vaccine revenues are expected to grow from $30 billion in 2010 to $52 billion in 2016. This vaccine series is one of the most expensive on the market, costing $360, all of which is paid for by taxpayers, as neither parents nor insurance are billed for the shots.

The Canary Party calls on the state of California to repeal AB499, and requests further consumer safety testing be done on HPV vaccines, as current testing is inadequate.

The normal process for certification of a new vaccine, involving data collection on the health of recipients for at least four years post-vaccination, was reduced to 15 months. . The “placebo” given to girls involved in the Gardasil testing was not an inert substance known to pose no health risks, but contained similar amounts of aluminum salts (proven to cause neurological and autoimmune disorders) as found in the Gardasil vaccine. . The current rate of reported deaths and serious injuries as a consequence of Gardasil vaccination raises questions as to the safety of this product.


The Canary Party believes that the growing collaboration between Pharma and Government is becoming increasingly problematic, and that the use of our schools as a marketing arm for pharmaceutical products is a prospect that should concern all of our citizens.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Ginger Taylor on with Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense
Written by The Canary Party   
Tuesday, 28 February 2012 00:00

Our Executive Director, Ginger Taylor, will be interviewed on Autism One Radio today (2/28) by Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense at 1pm EST.  They will be discussing The Canary Party, what it is and what is happening in the fight for the health of the American people.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term for Feeding Community
Written by The Canary Party   
Friday, 24 February 2012 18:52

Media Alert
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term for Feeding Community
Customers and Other Supporters Stand with Farmer
February 24, 2012--Baraboo, WI—Food sovereignty activists from around North America will meet at this tiny town on March 2, 2012 to support Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger and food sovereignty. Hershberger, who has a court hearing that day, is charged with four criminal misdemeanors that could land him in prison for three years with fines of over $10,000. The Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) targeted Hershberger for supplying a private buying club with fresh milk and other farm products.
DATCP has charged Hershberger with, among other things, operating a retail food establishment without a license. Hershberger repeatedly denies this, citing that he provides foods only to paid members in a private buying club and is not subject to state food regulations. “There is more at stake here than just a farmer and his few customers,” says Hershberger, “this is about the fundamental right of farmers and consumers to engage in peaceful, private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight.”
At a pre-court rally scheduled for 11:00am, in front of the Sauk County Courthouse in Baraboo, food rights activists will read and distribute a “Declaration of Food Independence” that asserts inherent rights in food choice. A signing ceremony will be part of the rally. The signers expect the declaration will inspire a growing food sovereignty movement. Speakers at the rally will include members of Hershberger’s club.
Hershberger and other farmers around the country have been and are facing state or federal charges against them for providing fresh foods to wanting customers. In recent months the FDA has conducted several long undercover sting operations and raids against peaceful farmers and buying clubs that have resulted in farms shutting down and consumers without access to their food.
Farm Food Freedom Coalition wants to ensure that America's treasures, our independent farms and ranches, are able to thrive. We aim to preserve our agricultural heritage and the future availability of traditional, farm fresh foods. Americans want and deserve the freedom to choose natural, unprocessed foods for generations to come.
Information about farm raids: For additional information on raw milk:
Media Contact: Liz Reitzig, Co-founder, Farm Food Freedom Coalition
More event information:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act – Darker Days for Pharma
Written by The Canary Party   
Wednesday, 22 February 2012 19:56

Beginning in September 2013, we will have the right to know if our doctors are being wined, dined, gifted, funded, or in any way compensated by a pharmaceutical company, thanks to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. There is evidently a lot of money changing hands, because the cost of recording all those payments and complying with the new federal law is going to be $224 million the first year, and $163 million annually thereafter. The purpose of the law is to ensure that undisclosed financial ties do not unduly influence medical research and medical practice.

A federal website will be maintained for the public, listing names of physicians and the value in dollars of payments received from manufacturers greater than $10 (add three or four zeros for some physicians). Doctors will also be required to disclose their stock holdings involving companies that supply drugs, medical devices and biologics. Aside from the extra cost to health care providers (which will likely be passed along to patients), this law is good news for consumers.

How do pharmaceutical companies feel about the bright light of day shining on the wined and dined? Pharma is apparently not too confident that we, the consumers of their goods, can handle this information. They are concerned that transparency “without context” could give us the wrong idea. They are worried that we might think drug companies are actually trying to buy influence by giving our doctors gifts, food, entertainment, travel, honoraria, research funding, grants, charitable contributions, direct compensation for teaching, consulting fees, investment interest, royalties, licensing fees and speaking fees.

Now why would we think that? John Castellani, President and CEO of the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) tells us that “transparency should bring clarity, not confusion.” Ironically, this is how PhRMA describes its “transparency” to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

“Our comments to CMS are long and complicated, reflecting the complexities of the issue. They make use of examples, hypotheticals and incredibly long descriptions.”

Such tactics do not bode well for either transparency or clarity. In fact, medical consumers may be left wondering if this is just another old-fashioned snow job. Pharmaceutical companies are very worried that the Physician Payment Sunshine provision of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act will result in consumers looking at a physician’s name and a dollar amount the doctor is paid by companies that make drugs, medical devices or supplies, and draw conclusions without understanding “the information learned, the expertise provided, or the resources that went into the particular research work.”

The law is meant to provide the public with transparency “in interactions between biopharmaceutical companies and health care providers.” (Try wading through pages 1542 – 1563 of the Affordable Care Act.) But Castellani fears that patients will see “such limited information as inaccurately suggesting a physician’s bias, despite research that has shown that this could not be further from the truth.” Getting at “the truth,” however, is not what pharma-funded research is known for, as evidenced by drug safety studies in which the “placebo” is not inert, or the epidemiological study of a vaccine preservative whose data is repeatedly reworked until it can no longer be shown to cause developmental delay in children.

Castellani says pharmaceutical companies want “more useful transparency.” The Canary Party asks, useful to whom? He claims that “we’re proud of the way that we collaborate with physicians, and they with us, in the interests of medical progress. Our goal is to continue working with CMS to create a tool with the appropriate resources for patients to appreciate this, as well.”

Does that last sentence sound like doublespeak nonsense to you? It doesn’t make any sense to us either. Unfortunately, the people who wrote it have a seat at the table with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Let’s hope that table isn’t at the Four Seasons.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

What is the Canary Party?

The Canary Party is a movement created to stand up for the victims of medical injury, environmental toxins and industrial foods by restoring balance to our free and civil society and empowering consumers to make health and nutrition decisions that promote wellness.



Canary Party PicBadge

“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”  -Thomas Jefferson