tagged w/ Deforestation
-
La Via Campesina (www.viacampesina.org), a global peasant movement representing small farmers, landless workers, fisherfolk, rural women, youth and indigenous peoples, with 150 member organizations from 70 countries on five continents, has denounced the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust’s recent acquisition of Monsanto Company shares. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was founded in 1994 by Microsoft founder William H. Gates, and today exerts a hegemonic influence on global agricultural development policy. The Foundation channels hundreds of millions of dollars into projects that encourage peasants and farmers to use Monsanto’s genetically-engineered (GE) seed and agrochemicals. In August the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the $33.5 billion asset trust endowment that funds the Foundation’s philanthropic projects (and to which Bill & Melinda are trustees) disclosed that it purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto shares for just over $23 million.(1)
According to Dena Hoff, a diversified family farmer in Glendive, Montana and North American coordinator of La Via Campesina, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust’s purchase of Monsanto shares indicates that the Gates Foundation’s interest in promoting the company’s seed is less about philanthropy than about profit-making. The Foundation is helping to open new markets for Monsanto, which is already the largest seed company in the world.”
Since 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has collaborated with the Rockefeller Foundation, an ardent promoter of GE crops for the world’s poor, to implement the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which is opening up the continent to GE seed and chemicals sold by Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. The Foundation has given $456 million to AGRA, and in 2006 hired Robert Horsch, a Monsanto executive for 25 years, to work on the project. In Kenya about 70 percent of AGRA grantees work directly with Monsanto (2) , nearly 80 percent of Gates' funding in the country involves biotech, and over $100 million in grants has been made to Kenyan organizations connected to Monsanto. In 2008, some 30 percent of the Foundation's agricultural development funds went to promoting or developing GE seed varieties (3).
In April the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and finance ministers from the US, Canada, Spain and South Korea pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), managed by the World Bank to “tackle world hunger and poverty.”(4) In June GAFSP announced that it gave $35 million to Haiti to increase smallholder farmers’ access to “agricultural inputs, technology, and supply chains.”(5) In May Monsanto announced that it donated 475 tons of seed to Haiti, which is being distributed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The administrator of USAID is Rajiv Shah, who worked at the Gates Foundation before being appointed by the Obama administration in 2009.
According to Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Haitian Peasant Movement of Papaye and Caribbean coordinator of La Via Campesina, “It is really shocking for the peasant organizations and social movements in Haiti to learn about the decision of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to buy Monsanto shares while it is giving money for agricultural projects in Haiti that promote the company’s seed and agrochemicals. The peasant organizations in Haiti want to denounce this policy which is against the interests of 80 percent of the Haitian population, and is against peasant agriculture—the base of Haiti’s food production. ”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also funds the US government’s Feed the Future initiative, administered by the State Department. At a July 20 congressional subcommittee hearing on Feed the Future, executive vice president for Monsanto Gerald Steiner testified that “Feed the Future is exciting not least because it recognizes both the business imperatives by which Monsanto and other companies must operate… We want to do good in the world, while we also do well for our shareholders.” Steiner mentioned Monsanto’s project to develop drought resistant maize for Africa, also funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.(6)
According to Hoff, “Foundations, however well meaning, should not be setting food and agricultural policies for any nation of peoples. Democracy demands the informed participation of civil society to determine what is in the best interest of each nation's population. ‘Doing well for our shareholders’ seems an ulterior motive for meddling in the health and welfare of the planet and all its inhabitants in order to make a profit.”
Perhaps not by coincidence, in July Monsanto’s chief executive officer and president Hugh Grant purchased $2 million of company shares, and vice president and chief financial officer Carl M. Casale bought $1.6 million of shares. “Grant and Casale have pocketed nice sums from selling Monsanto shares over the years.”(7) Purchase of Monsanto shares by Gates, Grant and Casale could have been in anticipation of last week’s news that researchers published the genome for wheat, the staple grain for one-third of the world's population. “For Monsanto, a quality wheat genome map could potentially help in our efforts to bring better wheat varieties to farmers," said Monsanto. (8) In 2008, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded $26.8 million to Cornell University to research wheat, and in May awarded $1.6 million to researchers at Washington State University to develop drought-resistant GE wheat varieties.(9)
The Gates Foundation continues to push Monsanto’s products on the poor, despite mounting evidence of the ecological, economic and physical dangers of producing and consuming GE crops and agrochemicals. In June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monsanto Co. vs. Geertson Seed Farms, its first case about a GE crop. The Court recognized that genetic contamination of non-GE crops from transgene flow of DNA from GE crops, which occurs through the spread of pollen by wind and bees, is harmful and onerous to the environment and farmers. According to the web site of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, “AGRA and its partners have released more than 100 new varieties of improved seed across the [African] continent.”(10)La Via Campesina (www.viacampesina.org), a global peasant movement representing small... more
-
-
This is the tenth edition of the Sustainable Agriculture Group's Monsanto Roundup where we keep you up to date on GMO, biotech, and Monsanto news. In this edition the news concentrates on biodiversity threats from proliferation of GMOS, landgrabs, and climate change effects:
* First Strong Evidence Of GM Plants Growing In The Wild In The U.S.
* Federal Court Rescinds USDA Approval of Genetically Engineered Sugarbeets
* Gates Foundation and Cargill Paper To Force Soy Monoculture Into Africa
Other sidenotes:
Crops pulled up in Italy
Gm grapevines pulled up in France
BT eggplant protested in the Philippines
DNA from transgenic plants found in milk and animal tissue
Jeffrey Smith spills the beans about GMOS
And various tidbits about this most important topic which the media is seriously remiss about in dessiminating this information to the public at large... plus a few other messages. ;-)
Thanks for supporting this monthly feature of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on Current.
NOTE:
Firstly, thank you to the majority of posters who posted in the last entry who gave me permission to upload this again. Please feel free to comment again. If you posted an on topic comment and would like it put back, please let me know. I also apologize to those who voted this up the last time. Your votes were very much appreciated.
However, the proliferation of meanspirited off topic content overshadowed the main purpose of this entry and was simply unacceptable and I believe deterred others from contributing to the conversation. So thanks to Current as well for that lovely delete button and the choice to do so.
I spend my time reading, researching, and putting this information together because it is important to me and others who post here, and to the real world we all live in. To deliberately seek to undermine and belittle such efforts is simply meanspirited. So this time hopefully the conversation will be on topic, civil, and addressing the important issue of genetic modification in tandem with corporate landgrabs, deforestation and climate change's effects on our food system and health.
Any attempt to once again derail this important conversation will result in it being uploaded again.
Thank you.This is the tenth edition of the Sustainable Agriculture Group's Monsanto Roundup... more
-
-
"The SOYA MODEL implies a war against the population, the emptying of the countryside, and the elimination of our collective memory in order to shoehorn people into towns and convert them into faithful consumers of whatever the market provides. The impacts of this model go beyond the borders of the new Soya Republics. The dehumanisation of agriculture and the depopulation of rural areas for the benefit of the corporations is increasing in the North and in the South." - Javiera Ruli in United Soya Republics. The Truth about Soya Production in Latin America
Read the Press Release here...
http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/index.html/index.php/20100901329/The-Gates-Foundation-and-Cargill-push-Soya-onto-Africa/menu-id-100025.html
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has announced a new project to develop the soya value chain in Africa in partnership with American NGO, TechnoServe and agricultural commodity trading giant Cargill. The US$8 million project will be implemented as a four year pilot in Mozambique and Zambia with the intention of spreading the model to other regions in the future.
The Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies that open new markets for strong corporate interests while assisting in the creation of policy environments to support foreign agribusiness’ interests. The programme will yoke African farmers into the soya value chain and open the door for major agribusiness players such as Cargill, while displacing African agricultural practices and traditional crops. In addition, there is a very real threat that this project could be a foot in the door for the introduction of genetically modified soya onto the Continent.
Since the green revolution of the 1960s, the soya bean has become the number one forage crop on the international market. About 85% of the world’s soybeans are processed into soya bean meal and oil, about 98% of that meal is further processed into animal feed, the balance is used to make soya flour and proteins. Approximately 95% of the oil is consumed as edible oil with the rest being used for industrial products such as fatty acids, soaps and agrofuel. In the last 40 years, production of soya bean has increased by over 500%, driven by the growing affluence of Chinese consumers, who are now eating more meat than ever before, as well as a significant increase in demand for soya beans as feedstock for biodiesel. In addition, soya beans fix nitrogen in the soil, thereby improving soil fertility and making it an excellent rotation crop.
The United States, Argentina and Brazil are the three major producers of soya in the world. The aggressive expansion of soya monocrops in Latin America has wreaked socio-economic and environmental disaster - in 2008 over 30 million hectares of soya was grown in Brazil and Argentina, where soya monocrops are notorious for displacing rural populations and causing mass deforestation. In April 2006, Greenpeace announced that in the 2004/2005 growing season, 1.2 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest was deforested as a consequence of soya expansion.
The vast majority of global soya crops are genetically modified to withstand applications of herbicides. (Approximately 93% of soya production in the USA is GM, 98.9% in Argentina and 70.7% in Brazil). The introduction of herbicide tolerant soya has created a sharp increase in the use of highly toxic herbicides – in the USA the use of herbicides has increased by 382.6 million pounds over the past 13 years, with herbicide tolerant soya beans accounting for 92% of that increase.
No multinational on the planet has greater interests in soya production and trade than the American corporation Cargill. Cargill’s business operations include purchasing, processing and distributing grain and agricultural commodities, the manufacture and sale of livestock feed and ingredients for processed foods and pharmaceuticals. Their assets and business operations in Latin America are staggering; it is responsible for over 75% of Argentina’s grain and oilseed production. It also has great interest in fertiliser production, having a two-thirds stake in one of the world’s leading fertiliser companies, Mosaic. Their business interests in Africa are scant in contrast. It has now partnered with the Gates Foundation to introduce a soya value chain in Africa.
cont."The SOYA MODEL implies a war against the population, the emptying of the... more
-
-
Despite the threat of deforestation, people and industries still need wood to manufacture certain products, or do they? What if an environmentally friendly replacement for wood could be developed? Germans Juergen Pfitzer and Helmut Naegele have created an alternative to wood called ArboForm. This sustainable plastic-like material is made from lignin, a component of wood and a by-product of the paper manufacturing process.
Read more: http://www.whitespace.bz/ws/web/forms/pulse/PulseMainArticle.aspx?id=510Despite the threat of deforestation, people and industries still need wood to... more
-
-
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
China's fight against disposable chopsticks
To keep up with demand, 100 acres of trees need to be felled every 24 hours. But efforts to restrain the use of disposable wooden chopsticks face many obstacles.
By Daniel K. Gardner
August 15, 2010
China's Ministry of Commerce, together with five other ministries, issued this warning in June: "Companies making disposable chopsticks will face local government restrictions aimed at decreasing the use of the throwaway utensil.... Production, circulation and recycling of disposable chopsticks should be more strictly supervised."
With summer floods devastating southern, western and northeastern China, a massive oil spill smothering the Yellow Sea off the port of Dalian, 3,000 barrels of chemicals bobbing aimlessly but threateningly in the Songhua River in the northeast, and nearly half a million newly registered cars — just since January — on Beijing roads spewing who knows how much additional carbon dioxide into the air, you may think that the government is unnecessarily overreaching in waging a war on the disposable chopstick.
But start doing the math and the disposable chopstick, made largely from birch and poplar (and, less so, from bamboo, because of its higher cost) begins to look deeply menacing — an environmental disaster not to be taken lightly. Begin with China's 1.3 billion people. In one year, they go through roughly 45 billion pairs of the throwaway utensils; that averages out to nearly 130 million pairs of chopsticks a day. (The export market accounts for 18 billion pairs annually.)
Greenpeace China has estimated that to keep up with this demand, 100 acres of trees need to be felled every 24 hours. Think here of a forest larger than Tiananmen Square — or 100 American football fields — being sacrificed every day. That works out to roughly 16 million to 25 million felled trees a year. Deforestation is one of China's gravest environmental problems, leading to soil erosion, famine, flooding, carbon dioxide release, desertification and species extinction.
Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »
If the disposable chopstick has to go, you can be sure that its death will be a slow one. Calls to abandon the use-and-toss type began more than 10 years ago and have since persisted unabated. By 2006, the activism had become more strenuous: Citizens launched a BYOC (Bring Your Own Chopsticks) movement, which continues to gather momentum. And Greenpeace China, channeling Nancy Reagan, sponsored a "Say no to disposable chopsticks" campaign. In 2008, endangered orangutans (OK, they probably were just guys dressed as orangutans) took up the cause, bursting into cafeterias in China of large companies such as IBM, Microsoft and Intel to remind diners of the ecological perils of chopstick deforestation.
Yet, more than 10 years later, the targeted disposable remains with us. Why?
First, while we in the West don't give much thought to a chopstick "industry," in China, where 100,000 people in more than 300 plants are employed in the manufacture of the wooden utensils, it's most definitely a flourishing enterprise. And just as jobs trump environmental issues in the West (think the coal, oil and logging industries), the argument that 100,000 jobs are at stake is a refrain that carries considerable weight. As Lian Guang, president of the Wooden Chopsticks Trade Assn., told the China Daily in 2009, "The chopstick industry is making a great contribution by creating jobs for poor people in the forestry regions," adding that melamine-resin chopsticks are hardly a sanitary substitute with their "high formaldehyde content." His mention of melamine resin is an effective touch, I admit.
Then there are the restaurants. The alternative to wooden disposables is sterilizing the tableware (plastic, metal or durable wood chopsticks) after each use. But the cost differential is significant: Disposables run about a penny apiece, while sterilization ranges from 15 to 70 cents. Restaurants, especially the low-end ones, worry about passing the costs on to customers. And the worry would seem to be warranted: Consumer advocacy groups from 21 Chinese cities published an open letter in March arguing that the costs of sterilization should not be passed on to consumers as the food safety law obligates restaurants to provide free, clean and safe tableware.
The warning issued by the Ministry of Commerce would appear to be a step in the right direction. Realistically, though, it offers scant hope; it simply has no teeth. It doesn't address the specific restrictions to be imposed, nor the nature of consequences for violations. Most tellingly, it sidesteps making any particular agency responsible for enforcement.
That the Chinese leadership is now taking sides in the war over disposable chopsticks is nonetheless heartening. But in the end, the outcome will be determined by the people, who will decide whether carrying their own sticks and bearing the costs of reusables is too large a price to pay to protect China's quickly disappearing forests.
Daniel K. Gardner is a professor of history and the director of the program in East Asian studies at Smith College.
http://www.latimes.com/media/alternatethumbnails/photo/2010-08/55565004-15123835.jpgChina's fight against disposable chopsticks
To keep up with demand, 100 acres... more
-
-
Last week the European Union’s Parliament passed new legislation that will halt the entrance of illegal wood into European nations. This is a major victory for forests and wildlife around the world.Last week the European Union’s Parliament passed new legislation that will halt... more
-
-
lnovey
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Clearing forests in the Amazon helps mosquitoes thrive and can send malaria rates soaring, U.S. researchers reported on Wednesday.
They found a 48 percent increase in malaria cases in one county in Brazil after 4.2 percent of its tree cover was cleared.
Their findings, published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, shows links between cutting down trees, a rise in the number of mosquitoes and infections of humans.
"It appears that deforestation is one of the initial ecological factors that can trigger a malaria epidemic," said Sarah Olson of the University of Wisconsin, who worked on the study.
Experts are already worried that the destruction of Brazil's Amazon forests can help drive climate change. Big fires, set by farmers to clear land for agriculture, are the main cause of deforestation.
One team estimated earlier this month that 19,000 square km (7,300 square miles) of forest had been lost every year in Brazil from 1998 to 2007.
The new study shows the immediate health consequences, the researchers said.
"Conservation policy and public health policy are one and the same," Jonathan Patz, the professor who oversaw the work, said in a telephone interview. "How we manage our landscapes and, in this case, tropical rain forest has implications for public health."
Malaria, caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquitoes, kills about 860,000 people a year globally, according to the World Health Organization. Brazil has about 500,000 cases a year of malaria, most carried by Anopheles darling mosquito.
Patz's team has been tracking mosquito populations and how they change as forests are cut down in Brazil and Peru. They took satellite data showing changes in tree cover in one county of Brazil's Amazon region and linked it with health records showing diagnosed cases of malaria.
COMMENT AT CIVICANIMAL.COMClearing forests in the Amazon helps mosquitoes thrive and can send malaria rates... more
-
-
EXTRACT: The poll showed 63 per cent of people want supermarkets to supply products only from GM-free animals. The figures come as Asda has said it can no longer guarantee the feed given to its poultry is GM-free.
--
We want GM-free guarantee on food, say two in three families
Sean Poulter
Daily Mail, 15th June 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286621/GM-free-guarantee-food-demanded-families.html
Two in three families want their food guaranteed to be non-GM, a survey revealed today.
The figures show that a propaganda campaign led by the food industry and the previous government has failed to win over a sceptical public.
The study, by consumer research group GfK NOP, found that 72 per cent of those polled were prepared to pay extra for non-genetically-modified food.
Children eating
Food for the family: Two thirds of consumers want their meat and dairy products from animals guaranteed to have had a GM-free diet. (Posed by models)
And 66 per cent - two thirds - said they wanted to buy meat and dairy products from animals guaranteed to have had a GM-free diet, while 89 per cent want such products to be clearly labelled. There is currently no such requirement.
Fewer than 40 per cent of those surveyed were aware that GM is creeping on to their plates via imported animal feed.
Critics accuse supermarkets and food manufacturers of supporting GM food by the back door. Most - except Marks & Spencer and organic producers - allow animals raised for meat and milk to be fed on GM crops such as soya. The poll showed 63 per cent of people want supermarkets to supply products only from GM-free animals.
The figures come as Asda has said it can no longer guarantee the feed given to its poultry is GM-free.
Pete Riley, of pressure group GM Freeze, said: 'Despite rhetoric from industry and government about the possible benefits of GM crops the British public appears to remain very sceptical. These results send a very clear message that any weakening of policies on the import and use of GM feed will not be welcomed by the public.
'They are demanding that there should be a clear non-GM choice.'
Critics are also concerned about a lack of independent scientific research into the health effects of so-called Frankenstein Foods.
There is also mounting evidence that GM crops and their associated farming practices harm the environment. The GM giant Monsanto admits its controversial crops have helped trigger an massive rise of superweeds on farmland across the U.S. The crops include Roundup-Ready cotton, soya beans and maize, genetically modified to withstand glyphosate weedkiller.
Millions of acres of U.S. countryside are being overrun with weeds that have a resistance to powerful chemicals that would have been used in the past to kill them off.
The biggest concern is pigweed which grows at a rate of more than one inch a day smothers food crops.EXTRACT: The poll showed 63 per cent of people want supermarkets to supply products... more
-
-
watch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/12270-230-groups-condemn-rtrs-greenwash
The Roundtable of Responsible Soya (RTRS) attempt to greenwash highly damaging soya production as "responsible" has been condemned by an alliance of international environment, farming and consumer organisations, including GM Freeze.
The RTRS is due to meet in Brazil on 9 June to agree and launch a set of "responsible" criteria for soybeans leading to products being approved and labelled as such.
GM Freeze joined the growing list of over 230 groups in over 30 countries and territories, from Iran to Canada to Paraguay to Sierra Leone, in signing a letter rejecting the label as greenwash of the worst kind [1] and pointing out that the criteria for assessing "responsible" soy have now been widely discredited.
GM Freeze has already contacted the major food retailers in the UK asking them to reject the RTRS label. The group lists 13 reasons [2] why supermarkets should not back the initiative including:
*Failure to protect forest and other habitats from clearance,
*Failure to protect rural communities and public health,
*The inclusion of unsustainable GM soy production as "responsible",
*Lack of credible traceability and enforcement or compliance with the criteria,
*Lack of any credible alternative soy production system to replace the industrial monocultures dominating North and South American soy.
The majority of soybeans are either used as animal feed or in the production of agro-fuels – very little feeds people. The EU has become reliant on South American soy meal to feed livestock, and its biofuel targets encourage soy plantations to spread into forest and other biodiverse habitats.
The group is urging supermarkets to be honest about this and to put their resources into finding alternatives to unsustainable soy production.
Commenting Pete Riley said:
"This Roundtable's 'responsible' criteria are a cynical attempt by a very damaging industry to polish up its image. They are misleading and meaningless and they won't work. The RTRS labelling is a blatant sham and has rightly been dismissed by scores of organisations from right around the world.
"The RTRS doesn't address the real problems of soy production, nor do they address important issues like long-term food security. We need solutions that reduce the harm caused by intensive farming, not more of the same. UK companies cannot pretend that exporting the damage our food chain causes to other countries can be called 'responsible'.
"Supermarkets would be taking a big risk if they buy into this label when what their customers want is real, honest information. Many people are already aware of the threat to biodiversity and people from soy production, and the fig-leaf offered by the RTRS will not convince them."
ENDSwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/12270-230-groups-condemn-rtrs-greenwash
The... more
-
-
An increasing number of children's books—including some detailing the hazards of rainforest deforestation—were found to have been constructed from paper that originated in Indonesia’s rainforests, according to a report commissioned by Rainforest Action Network.
The report, entitled “Turning the Page on Rainforest Destruction,” discovered that 18 of 30 kids' books chosen at random contained controversial wood fibers.
How is this possible?
Well, the Indonesian logging industry is like the American Wild West.
Every tree for him or herself.
There are virtually no government or self-imposed industry checks and balances.
As such, pulp and paper companies are clear-cutting rainforests on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra and replacing them with acadia pulp wood plantations.
The biggest benefactor of this lawless pastiche?
China.
Over an eight year period, 2000 to 2008, Chinese sales of children’s picture books to the U.S. ballooned by more than 290 percent, averaging an increase of more than 35 percent per year.
According to the report, China is the top importer of Indonesian pulp and paper. Furthermore, a large portion of the Chinese paper industry is associated with one controversial supplier in particular—Asia Pacific Resources International (APRIL).
Last month, The Forest Stewardship Council, a defacto global regulator that encourages sustainably managed forests, suspended the certification of APRIL due to “evidence of conversion of rainforests for acacia plantations, the destruction of 'High Conservation Value Forest,' draining peatlands, as well as continuing conflicts with local communities,” according to Mongabay.
Rainforest Action Network’s report, which was conducted by independent laboratories, also found that:
Nine of the ten leading publishers of children’s books are selling books manufactured on paper that threatens Indonesia’s rainforests.
Publishers with paper policies and climate commitments had a similar percentage of books containing controversial fiber to publishers without policies.
Industry paper policies and best practices are currently lacking the capacity or failing to screen out fiber that is sourced from endangered forests or from controversial sources and suppliers. http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/06/03/childrens-books-about-rainforest-deforestation-traced-back-to-rainforest-deforestationAn increasing number of children's books—including some detailing the... more
-
-
We Save Trees with Tees
Rain Tees are a 100% organic line of apparel for women and children that feature designs by youth living in endangered rain forests.
We donate school supplies to the children and ask them to illustrate what they see happening in their world every day. Each Rain Tee features their thoughts, illustrations and names and for every item sold, a child involved in the non-profit Kids Saving the Rain Forest receives a tree they can plant to replace one that has been destroyed.
ETHICAL MANUFACTURING: Our Rain Tees staff are paid 25% above average wages so health care and education come first for them and their families.
EVERY RAIN TEE EDUCATES: At Rain Tees we feel every child should have a chance. That’s why we sponsor each child whose artwork is chosen for a Rain Tees design to attend school in their home country.
EVERY RAIN TEE PLANTS A TREE: For every Rain Tee sold, a child in Costa Rica’s most threatened tropical rainforest receives a tree to plant through the educational non-profit Kids Saving the Rain Forest.
Every Rain Tee is handmade right outside the Peruvian Amazon in our family owned and vertically integrated factories. We use eco-friendly inks and dyes and vertically integrated manufacturing.
http://www.raintees.com/about/the-teamWe Save Trees with Tees
Rain Tees are a 100% organic line of apparel for women and... more
-
-
Finally ... some good news! Today, Nestle, the world's biggest food and drinks company, announced that it will cease using products that drive the tropical rainforest destruction.
This is great news for our environment in what has otherwise been a bleak few weeks as
President Obama continues to dig in (or drill in) and stand firm behind his plans to increase offshore drilling...despite the BP Deepwater oil disaster AND continues to work to LIFT THE BAN on COMMERCIAL WHALING.
In Indonesia, palm oil and pulp plantations are both driving deforestation and pushing orangutans to the brink of extinction. After being caught red-handed, Nestle has committed to identify and exclude companies from its supply chain that own or manage "high-risk plantations or farms linked to deforestation."
This exclusion would apply to companies such as Sinar Mas, Indonesia's most notorious palm-oil and pulp-and-paper supplier, if it fails to meet the criteria set out in the policy.
It also has implications for palm oil traders, such as Cargill, which continue to buy from Sinar Mas. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20860.cfm
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/caught-red-handed-how-nestleFinally ... some good news! Today, Nestle, the world's biggest food and drinks... more
-
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20005101-36.html
Sometimes these things might actually work: An aggressive, meant-to-shock Facebook and YouTube campaign on behalf of environmental group Greenpeace has caused food conglomerate Nestle to modify its policies regarding the use of palm oil.
IN THE PHOTO: An activist wearing an orangutan mask protesting at Nestle’s Jakarta offices. Nestle dropped Sinar Mas as a supplier amid Greenpeace accusations that the palm oil producer was contributing to deforestation. (EPA Photo)
Nestle announced early on Monday that it has partnered with The Forest Trust, a non-profit group that helps businesses develop practices that harvest forests sustainably, to tackle the social and environmental impacts of its corporate supply chain by severing ties to companies that contribute to deforestation. The first issue addressed will be its use of palm oil--the harvesting of which has been connected to the loss of rainforests and the animal species that inhabit them, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenpeace considers this a major victory: Two months ago, the environmental group targeted Nestle's use of palm oil with a purposely unsettling video that compared eating Kit-Kat bars to snacking on the bloodied appendages of orangutans. When Nestle lobbied to have the video removed from YouTube, Greenpeace turned its force up a notch and encouraged supporters to start posting comments in protest on Nestle's Facebook fan page and to change their profile photos to modified versions of the Nestle logo (i.e. "Killer" instead of Kit-Kat"). The whole thing turned into a particularly ugly social-media mess for Nestle when the manager of the Facebook fan page started getting argumentative and rude. The commenters grew even more vocal, even after the page manager apologized.
Nestle's Monday announcement makes no mention of the digital smackdown that pressured it into making this change, but Greenpeace has been quick to highlight the role of social media as well as more traditional forms of grassroots lobbying.
"With nearly 1.5 million views of our Kit Kat advert, over 200,000 emails sent, hundreds of phone calls and countless Facebook comments, you made it clear to Nestle that it had to address the problems with the palm oil and paper products it buys," read a Monday release from Greenpeace's U.K. division. "Greenpeace campaigners have met several times with Nestle executives to discuss the problems with sourcing of palm oil and paper products. It certainly seemed like things were moving forward in these discussions. But we didn't expect Nestle to come up with such a comprehensive 'zero deforestation' policy so quickly."
Nestle says it had already set a goal to make its palm oil products 100 percent sustainable by 2015. Right now, it's at 18 percent.
So is its partnership with The Forest Trust any more than just posturing? Greenpeace is optimistic. The Forest Trust is "an independent organization we've worked with before (and) will be closely monitoring Nestle's progress," the release from Greenpeace read.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20005101-36.html
Sometimes these things might... more
-
-
A joint report released today by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) finds that our natural support systems are on the verge of collapsing unless radical changes are made to preserve the world's biodiversity. Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ahmed Djoghlaf, called the bleak report "a wake-up call for humanity."
The report is the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3). Employing scientific assessments and 110 government reports, the report confirms that governments around the world have failed in their 2002 pledge to reduce biodiversity loss by this year. Instead, the five biggest causes behind biodiversity loss—habitat destruction, over-exploitation of resources, pollution, invasive species, and climate change—have either worsened or stayed the same.
"We need a new vision for biological diversity for a healthy planet and a sustainable future for humankind," Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said.
In addition the report warns that several ecosystems are heading toward tipping points from which they may never recover. Due to a combination of climate change, deforestation, and fires, the Amazon rainforest may change irrevocably; while coral reefs are being pounded by overfishing, warmer waters, and ocean acidification; finally freshwater ecosystems like lakes and rivers are losing biodiversity and abundance due to nutrient runoff.
"Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet," Djoghlaf said.
Officials are increasingly comparing the current biodiversity crisis to the global economic meltdown of 2008-2009, stating that while governments moved quickly to tackle the economic crisis they have responded languidly to the many threats to the world's environmental systems. These systems underpin the human economy by providing food, clean water, pollination, pest control, buffers from natural disasters, medicine, and carbon sequestration to name a few of their natural goods, known to researchers as 'ecosystem services'.
"For a fraction of the money summoned up instantly to avoid economic meltdown, we can avoid a much more serious and fundamental breakdown in the Earth’s life support systems," write the report's authors.
Yet, Achim Steiner, the Executive Director of the UNEP, says that "many economies remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life forms and their role in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the atmosphere."
* see comments below for more
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0510-hance_wake_up.htmlA joint report released today by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the... more
-
-
Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food Security Act (S.384), which, as I have documented on this blog before, Monsanto HAS been involved in lobbying on. The bill first came to my attention about a year ago, when the same committee held a very similar hearing about the same bill. In the year since then, I've become increasingly knowledgeable and outraged about the issues surrounding global food security. In the meantime, the Obama Administration took the lead on the issue of global food security from the Senate, and USAID is doing quite a bit already (in partnership with the World Bank and private organizations and companies) to really f*ck things up worldwide.
One of the clauses in the bill specifies that the U.S. should promote biotechnology in its efforts to combat global hunger. After a year of lobbying to ask them to remove this, they still haven't. Lugar made a point today in saying how necessary he thought GMOs are. My very inadequate transcription of his remarks are as follows:
'The average African farmer's yield per acre is 1/2 that of an Indian farmer, 1/4 that of a Chinese farmer, and 1/5 of an American. [Something about Bill Gates' piece in the Wall Street Journal today] The role of GMOs in agriculture development is a matter of contention. Europe's rejection of GM has pressured African governments for fear they will lose export markets. Others argue safety is not proven despite 2 decades of safe use of GMOs. This ensures that much of the continent [Africa] will lack the tools to deal with changing climate in the long run. We may not be able to double food output by 2050. I ask to what extent does USAID support a full range of technologies? To what extent do the strategies encourage biotech?'
Here's the thing. The "double food output by 2050" figure is one that was created by idiots. Or just very greedy assholes. It assumes that the rest of the world will want to eat much more grain-fed meat (like Americans do now). Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not operate like a market with supply and demand. A diet of grain-fed meat means increased diet-related chronic illnesses for those who eat it. And it means continued and worsened environmental degradation and climate change for the planet. Our species existence on this planet is contingent on us NOT increasing grain-fed meat consumption (and in fact, on DECREASING it). Therefore, the Senate, USAID, and Bill Gates are all aiming for a false goal.
Rajiv Shah (head of USAID) answered as follows (again, this is a very poor transcription):
'USAID has had a longstanding relationship with CG research activities [the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major institution of the Green Revolution] - linking them to local agricultural systems. We've invested in land grant universities through collaborative research systems. The two things we are looking to evolve - we've identified a set of core crops and core production constraints like rice, maize, and cassava and drought tolerant and heat tolerant traits. We are working with partners around the world to do this. We are looking to partner with USDA and the unique capabilities they bring. We've specifically support transgenic technologies including GE eggplant in India and we are supporting building the regulatory systems in other countries and then we'll let farmers decide what they want.'
Shah is an asshat. I really don't have a nicer word for him or a more apt description. He came originally from the Gates Foundation (which employs a former Monsanto VP and is now working with CGIAR and actively promoting GM crops and industrial agriculture) to the USDA and then to USAID. By all accounts he's very smart, but he's 100% on board with this "new Green Revolution" extend industrial ag including biotech to the developing world plan (despite massive amounts of science that says it's a bad idea).
The number one outrage for me from this hearing was when Shah said that it was appropriate to be speaking about this on Earth Day and then referred to US promotion of biotech as "sustainable." He said we are working on two fronts - to make agriculture produce more and to make it more sustainable. Except, from what I heard, it seemed that his idea of sustainable was GM "drought tolerant" seeds.
Next came Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. He said (roughly):
'The regulatory environment is very important. If you don't fill the space with science and knowledge and facts, then fear can fill the space just as easily. To deal with the problems of the future, we can't afford to let it drift for decades. It must be addressed as the technologies are developed.'
In other words, if USAID and its partners are not active in promoting biotech, then people around the world might discover some of the risks or problems with biotech and reject it. He wants to use biotech now, not wait for years or decades until technologies are proven safe (or perfected so that they are safe) before using them.
Next, Lugar and the two witnesses (Shah and Lew) had an exchange about a "country-led" effort to solve problems of food insecurity. They don't want to be paternalistic, and yet they don't want to give up control over the uses of their money in the countries where they spend it. Essentially it sounds like the US will lay out what they are interested in doing (i.e. biotech) and if other countries are interested in playing ball, they can. If they don't, then they don't get any money from us or the World Bank.
snip
This turned into a dialogue about women. Research shows that some 70% of smallholder farmers in the developing world are women, and a disproportionate percent of the hungry are women and girls. Also, when you give $1 of additional income to a woman, it is more likely to go toward the health and well-being of the family than if you give that $1 to a man. I'm very pleased that the U.S. government is recognizing this and taking action on it.
Unfortunately, there's a negative side to this too. I believe it was Rajiv Shah who mentioned during the hearing that it is easier to convince women to buy GM seeds and grow GMOs because you can make a case for increased nutrition from GMOs. They are also more likely to purchase ammonia fertilizer (which kills the life in the soil and pollute waterways). Thus, women are more likely than men to respond to arguments the US makes telling them to adopt GMOs and industrial ag.Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food... more
-
-
It all started with Sting, this fad for owning one's very own patch of tropical rainforest, though it is probably unfair to blame him entirely for creating the boom industry that buying up forests piecemeal has become. It is 20 years since the musician first set foot in Brazil and pledged to fight the cause of the Yanomami Indians, setting up the Rainforest Foundation to protect forests and their indigenous inhabitants. Today, protecting forests has acquired a more international purpose.
Climate change, rather than assuring the livelihoods of local people, has become the issue. Celebrities and politicians, and many others just in search of a quick buck, are falling over each other to advocate plant-a-tree conservationism as a salve to global warming. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&Itemid=27&id=27%3Athe-joomla-communityIt all started with Sting, this fad for owning one's very own patch of tropical... more
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Despite fundamental differences in what they represent, there are occasional calls to allow the use of genetic engineering (which produces genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs) within the USDA National Organic Program. GMO varieties are currently most widespread in corn, soybean, canola and cotton crops, in dairy production, and in minor ingredients, such as dairy cultures, used in food processing, but new products are being introduced and commercialized.
Here are 10 essential points that I believe show why GMOs are incompatible with organic production:
1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.
2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.
3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite -- an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level - the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.
4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach - know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.
continuedDespite fundamental differences in what they represent, there are occasional calls to... more
-
-
Polylactic acid (PLA), a plastic substitute made from fermented plant starch (usually corn) is quickly becoming a popular alternative to traditional petroleum-based plastics. As more and more countries and states follow the lead of China, Ireland, South Africa, Uganda and San Francisco in banning plastic grocery bags responsible for so much so-called “white pollution” around the world, PLA is poised to play a big role as a viable, biodegradable replacement.
PLA Helps to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Proponents also tout the use of PLA—which is technically “carbon neutral” in that it comes from renewable, carbon-absorbing plants—as yet another way to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases in a quickly warming world. PLA also will not emit toxic fumes when incinerated.
PLA Biodegrades Slowly Unless Subjected to Industrial Composting
But critics say that PLA is far from a panacea for dealing with the world’s plastic waste problem. For one thing, although PLA does biodegrade, it does so very slowly.
According to Elizabeth Royte, writing in Smithsonian, PLA may well break down into its constituent parts (carbon dioxide and water) within three months in a “controlled composting environment,” that is, an industrial composting facility heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and fed a steady diet of digestive microbes. But it will take far longer in a compost bin, or in a landfill packed so tightly that no light and little oxygen are available to assist in the process. Indeed, analysts estimate that a PLA bottle could take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill.
Recyclers Can’t Mix PLA and Other Plastics
Another issue with PLA is that, because it is of different origin than regular plastic, it must be kept separate when recycled, lest it contaminate the recycling stream. Being plant-based, PLA needs to head to a composting facility, not a recycling facility, per se, when it has out served its usefulness. And that points to another problem: There are currently only 113 industrial-grade composting facilities across the United States.
Most PLA Uses Genetically Modified Corn
Another downside of PLA is that it is typically made from genetically modified corn, at least in the United States. The largest producer of PLA in the world is NatureWorks, a subsidiary of Cargill, which is the world’s largest provider of genetically modified corn seed.
With increasing demand for corn to make ethanol fuel, let alone PLA, it’s no wonder that Cargill and others have been tampering with genes to produce higher yields. But the future costs of genetic modification to the environment and human health are still largely unknown and could be very high.
cont.Polylactic acid (PLA), a plastic substitute made from fermented plant starch (usually... more
-
-
This week, Nestlé's massive shareholder meeting was interrupted by some pissed off orangutans protesting the deforestation of their habitats in Indonesia. Nestlé contracts with companies that are clear-cutting rainforest and setting up palm oil plantations there to obtain palm oil for its products like KitKat bars, PowerBars, Nestlé Quick, etc.
To put this in perspective, Nestle has some 250,000 shareholders, mostly Swiss and American, so crashing their annual shareholder meeting is no small feat!
Nestle, Give the Orangutans a Break!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8kwVU5pujg&feature=player_embedded
It couldn't be any more clear-cut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToGK3-2tZz8&feature=relatedThis week, Nestlé's massive shareholder meeting was interrupted by some... more
-
