tagged w/ Toxic
-
Today President Barack Obama will return to Iowa for an official “grassroots event” at the Iowa State Fair in an effort to fire up his base in the state where he unexpectedly won the first in the nation caucus in 2008, launching him on the road to the White House. Right now, Iowa is considered a crucial battleground state and one of the 12 that six months from the election is too close to call. The doors at the event open in the next few hours, but President Obama isn’t scheduled to appear until 7 pm.
Even though Obama’s campaign stop in Iowa may seem routine, for many Iowans, especially family farmers, environmentalists, animal welfare advocates and rural residents, the location of the visit, at the Paul R. Knapp Animal Learning Center is certain to cause real alarm.
While the name of the building on the Iowa state fairgrounds sounds fairly innocuous, during the famous state fair, the building is transformed into a major propaganda set piece for industrial agriculture, complete with life-size gestation crates, full of sows with newborn baby pigs, dioramas of factory farms and posters full of factory farm PR platitudes. See the slideshow below for the real story of where Obama will speak to voters today in Iowa.
Ironically, President Obama’s visit to the factory farm propaganda site comes at a time when major food companies such as Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy’s, Denny’s and Safeway are responding to consumer pressure to dump gestation crates. Now it seems that the practices of locking sows in cages for much of their adult life as advocated by Iowa’s factory farm pork producers and the Big Ag money behind this nasty effort to whitewash the factory farm industry, will get what they paid for - the Presidential seal of approval. The Paul R. Knapp building is also sponsored by Christensen Farms, a Minnesota-based factory farm operation that boasts on its website as being “one of the top three producers in the United States”. Last year, Christensen Farms featured banners with the soft porn feel-good-themed motto: “Farming Feels Good”.Guess they’ve never asked a sow in a gestation crate for her opinion.
For many family farmers and rural Iowans, who helped pushed Obama to a first place finish during the 2008 caucus, Obama’s appearance in this building is an outrage and a major misstep by the campaign. Four years ago, such a mistake would have likely cost Obama the Iowa caucus and thus the election. And many, including myself, have written that a similar gaff by Hillary Clinton, cost her more than first place in 2008. While factory farms may seem to be an odd issue to outsiders, the ungodly stench of pig shit from factory hog confinements and the political collusion in Iowa’s state capital have been leading hot button issues during state and presidential campaigns since the mid 1990s.
The issue was so important for progressive farmers, environmentalists and rural residents that John Edwards paraded a cart with hogs in it through Des Moines and onto the state fairgrounds that said, Edwards for Local Control and Hogs for Edwards. Not to be outdone, then Senator Barack Obama challenged Edward’s commitment on factory farms in front of an audience of Iowa farmers and rural advocates who knew the issue best. On November 10, 2007, speaking at the Food and Family Farm Presidential Summit, an event that I organized where 5 of the 6 Democratic presidential candidates spoke, Obama boasted about his record on factory farms or CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).
Said Obama: “So when I hear other candidates say they’ll stand up to the special interests on the issues that matter to you – like CAFO’s – I’m reminded that the test of leadership isn’t what you say, it’s what you do. Voting records matter. And unlike other candidates who have changed their position on CAFO’s, I look at this issue as a matter of principle, not politics. That’s why I have always stood for tougher environmental regulations and local control over whether a CAFO can be built in your neighborhood, and that’s why we need to limit EQIP funding to giant CAFO’s so they are forced to pay for their own pollution. And that’s what I’ll do as President.” Clearly President Obama’s advance staff this time around is either so clueless about the state’s farm, environmental and rural issues or so arrogant that they just don’t care to get it right.
To the more than 22,000 family hog farmers that have been forced out of business in Iowa in the past 15 years and the tens of thousands of rural Iowans who have seen their property value drop precipitously and their quality of life ruined by the stench of nearby factory hog confinements, the appearance by the Obama campaign is just another sign of how far his administration has moved away from the progressive, family farm agenda that helped him win the 2008 Iowa caucus.
In the past nearly four years, Obama’s family farm and rural supporters have watched as his administration has caved on nearly every major campaign promise he made in his now famous shrinking rural agenda. While President Obama planted a garden on the White House lawn and his wife launched a major healthy food initiative called Let’s Move, the Obama USDA, FDA and EPA have gone out of their way to favor agribusiness in their rule making and review processes, including the failure to ban subtherapeutic antibiotics for livestock used for treatment of human diseases, the White House’s caving to agribusiness on GIPSA (or fair market livestock reforms for family farmers) to their rampant approval of genetically engineered crops and Obama’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise to label GMOs.
At the same time, President Obama and his administration is failing on even his most basic campaign promises, the factory farm fight in Iowa is heating once up once again, with more new factory farms being proposed as the spring planting finishes. Last week, the application for a 5,000 hog confinement facility was withdrawn by the farmer after public outcry.
More at the link
____
How is this different from what Mitt Romney would do? Politics is bs.Today President Barack Obama will return to Iowa for an official “grassroots... more
-
-
Last year, India asked the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to discontinue Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of the upcoming London Olympics, citing the American corporation’s links to Union Carbide, the company responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas leak that killed 2,500 people.
Now Vietnam is calling for Dow to quit the games because of the company’s record in producing the toxic defoliant Agent Orange, writes the Thanh Nien News, an influential newspaper in Ho Chi Minh City.
The United States military used Agent Orange extensively in the Vietnam War. Contained in drums with orange stripes (hence the name), the defoliant was sprayed on farms and forests to deprive the communist North Vietnamese and their allies of food and cover.
The systematic dumping caused death, disease and genetic deformities among millions of Vietnamese, including generations born 40 years after the war ended in 1975. The poison continues to contaminate Vietnam’s ecosystem and food chain, the newspaper reports.
The News says Vietnamese government recently sent a letter to the IOC expressing “profound concerns” about Dow’s involvement in the Olympics, which are due to start in less than two months.
“What is worth condemning is the fact that despite [international opinion], Dow Chemical expressed their indifference and refused compensation for the victims of Agent Orange produced by the company, as well as their responsibility to clean up contaminated areas,” according to the letter.
The paper quotes a Dow spokesman dismissing the letter as “misguided” and wrongly focused,” while the IOC said it carefully studied the history of the company and found it “committed to good corporate citizenship.”
But leftist American political author Noam Chomsky is siding with Vietnam, saying it is “entirely appropriate” for the government to object to Dow’s sponsorship, the paper reports. “The use of Agent Orange was a major war crime. The victims have been largely ignored, another crime,” Chomsky said.
Washington has largely rebuffed efforts to be held responsible for the ill effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, though the U.S. government has promised to help clean up contaminated airports formerly used by American troops.
Ironically, Dow and Monsanto, another Agent Orange producer, are now conducting business in Vietnam.
But if the chairman of the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange could have his way, the two companies would pack up and leave, the paper reported. “My ultimate goal is to push the government to get both Dow and Monsanto out of Vietnam,” he said.
More at the linkLast year, India asked the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to discontinue Dow... more
-
-
On March 3 Nicole Maurer learned of the proposed settlement between BP and hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast businesses and residents harmed by its 2010 oil spill, the largest in US history.
In her cramped but immaculate trailer on a muddy back road in the small town of Buras, Louisiana, Nicole tells me that the two years since the tragedy began on April 20, 2010, have been “a total nightmare” for her family. Not only has her husband William’s fishing income all but vanished along with the shrimp he used to catch but the entire family is plagued by persistent health problems.
For months following the onset of the disaster, she says, there was an oil smell outside their home and “a constant cloudiness, like a haze, but it wasn’t fog.” Her 6-year-old daughter Brooklyn’s asthma got worse, and she now has constant upper respiratory infections. “Once it goes away, it comes right back,” Nicole explains.
Before the spill, Elizabeth, 9, was her “well kid.” But now Elizabeth constantly suffers from rashes, allergies, inflamed sinuses, sore throat and an upset stomach.
Nicole stares at me and catches her breath; she apologizes for the tears that flow down her face. “It’s a touchy subject,” she says. “They are just tired. Tired of being sick.”
William worked from June to October 2010 as part of the Vessels of Opportunity program that paid the fishermen BP put out of business to use their boats to clean up its oil. William transported giant bags, called bladders, used to collect oil, to the shore. When he came home at night, says Nicole, his clothes “smelled oily.” Not only were his clothes blackened; so was William.
William’s symptoms began with coughing, then headaches and skin rashes, followed by vomiting and diarrhea. About three to six months later, he started bleeding from his ears and nose and suffering from a heavy cough.
“I ain’t got no money for a doctor,” William quietly tells me, staring down at his hands in his lap. Medicaid covers the kids, but Nicole and William do not have health insurance. “We didn’t know we were gonna get sick. Now I get sick, I stay sick. I don’t sleep. I stay stressed out more than anything. I got bags under my eyes I never had before. I just don’t know if I wanna show people who I am.”
Nicole is fairly confident that the settlement is not going to bring justice. So she wants just one thing: enough money to get her entire family out of the Gulf Coast for good.
On February 27, US District Court Judge Carl Barbier was to hear opening arguments against BP, Transocean, Halliburton and all the companies involved in the disaster. The case consolidates virtually every civil charge brought against the companies by individuals, business and property owners, and the federal and state governments. It is the most complex and significant environmental litigation in history. As this article goes to press it seems unlikely that the plaintiffs will ever get their day in court. Instead, the judge has issued continuances to allow more time for a series of settlement deals to be negotiated.
As information about the settlement negotiations comes to light, several critical issues are not being adequately addressed—including the human health crisis brought on by the disaster.
Many people whose health was adversely affected by the spill would be excluded. The Medical Benefits Settlement covers about 90,000 people who are qualifying cleanup workers (out of an estimated 140,000) and 110,000 coastal residents living within one-half to one mile of the coast (out of a coastal population of 21 million). Although it would cover “certain respiratory, gastrointestinal, eye, skin and neurophysiological” conditions, it excludes mental health and a host of physical ailments, including cancers, birth defects, developmental disorders and neurological disorders including dementia.
The proposed settlement provides a health outreach program and twenty-one years of health monitoring—but not healthcare. If “nonspecified” ailments occur in this time frame, the patient must sue BP and prove causality to receive a settlement. Accepting the settlement also means forgoing the right to sue BP for punitive damages. BP estimates its total remaining liability for individuals and businesses at $7.8 billion—a lowball figure for many reasons, and much less than would be necessary if large numbers of people do suffer cancers and other chronic diseases as a result of the spill.
Also excluded from any settlement are 194,000 individuals and businesses who accepted one-time final payments from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), which was established by BP on June 16, 2010, to comply with the Oil Pollution Act’s mandate that it fully compensate victims of the spill. Unable to afford to wait out a legal process, 95,000 people accepted payments of $5,000, and 45,000 accepted payments averaging $15,000, agreeing to give up their right to sue BP or any of the companies for any reason, including any harmful health effects. GCCF administrator Kenneth Feinberg was “dubious” about health complaints, as he told the Times-Picayune in September. He went on to question whether cleanup workers suffering from respiratory conditions “are going to be able to provide any support medically or occupationally for the proposition that they’re entitled to get paid. We’ll see.” In the end, except for claims from those injured on the Deepwater Horizon, the GCCF did not honor a single request for compensation related to health concerns.
* * *
Witnesses reported a host of ailments, including eye, nose and throat irritation; respiratory problems; blood in urine, vomit and rectal bleeding; seizures; nausea and violent vomiting episodes that last for hours; skin irritation, burning and lesions; short-term memory loss and confusion; liver and kidney damage; central nervous system effects and nervous system damage; hypertension; and miscarriages.
Cleanup workers reported being threatened with termination when they requested respirators, because it would “look bad in media coverage,” or they were told that respirators were not necessary because the chemical dispersant Corexit was “as safe as Dawn dishwashing soap.” Cleanup workers and residents reported being directly sprayed with Corexit, resulting in skin lesions and blurred eyesight. Many noted that when they left the Gulf, their symptoms subsided, only to recur when they returned.
More at the linkOn March 3 Nicole Maurer learned of the proposed settlement between BP and hundreds of... more
-
-
When a retired fisherman called to report that about 1,500 dolphins had washed up dead on Peru’s northern coast, veterinarian Carlos Yaipén’s first reaction was, “That’s impossible.” But when Yaipén traveled up the coast last week, he counted 615 dead dolphins along a 135-kilometer stretch of coastline. Now, the death toll could be as high as 2,800, based on volunteers’ counts. Peru's massive dolphin die-off is among the largest ever reported worldwide. The strandings, which began in January, are a marine mystery that may never be unraveled. The causes could be acoustic impact from testing for oil or perhaps an unknown disease. In addition, stress or toxic contaminants can make marine mammals more vulnerable to pathogens such as viruses, said Peter Ross, a research scientist at Canada’s Institute of Ocean
More at the linkWhen a retired fisherman called to report that about 1,500 dolphins had washed up dead... more
-
-
Members of the Group of Eight, in a declaration, said deep-water drilling and hydraulic fracturing were key to a safe and secure energy future.
The G8 industrialized nations wrapped up meetings last weekend at the U.S. presidential retreat at Camp David, Md.
In a 40-point declaration, the G8 said it was committed to a policy of energy security that focused on safety and sustainability.
"We are committed to establishing and sharing best practices on energy production, including exploration in frontier areas and the use of technologies such as deep water drilling and hydraulic fracturing, where allowed, to allow for the safe development of energy sources, taking into account environmental concerns over the life of a field," the declaration read.
Hydraulic fracturing, known also as fracking, uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to coax oil and natural gas out of underground shale formations. The practice is controversial because of the perceived toxicity of the chemical components. The United States has moved forward with the practice, though some European countries have placed a moratorium on fracking.
Deep-water drilling slowed in the wake of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but has since gained momentum.
"As our economies grow, we recognize the importance of meeting our energy needs from a wide variety of sources ranging from traditional fuels to renewables to other clean technologies," the G8 declaration added.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/05/21/G8-warms-to-fracking-deep-water-drilling/UPI-82701337603041/#ixzz1vZ0nFmZs
More at the linkMembers of the Group of Eight, in a declaration, said deep-water drilling and... more
-
-
Kay Allen had just started work, and everything seemed quiet at the Cornerstone Care community health clinic in Burgettstown, Pa. But things didn't stay quiet for long.
"All the girls, they were yelling at me in the back, 'You gotta come out here quick. You gotta come out here quick,' " said Allen, 59, a nurse from Weirton, W.Va.
Allen rushed out front and knew right away what all the yelling was about. The whole place reeked — like someone had spilled a giant bottle of nail polish remover.
"I told everybody to get outside and get fresh air. So we went outside. And Aggie said, 'Kay, I'm going to be sick.' But before I get in, to get something for her to throw up in, she had to go over the railing," she said.
Nothing like this had ever happened in the 20 years that Allen has been at the clinic. After about 45 minutes, she thought the coast was clear and took everyone back inside.
"It was fine. But the next thing you know, they're calling me again. There was another gust. Well, the one girl, Miranda, she was sitting at the registration place, and you could tell she'd had too much of it. And Miranda got overcome by that and she passed out," she said.
'It's The Unknown I Think That's The Scariest Thing'
This sort of thing has been happening for weeks. Mysterious gusts of fumes keep wafting through the clinic.
In fact, just the day before being interviewed by NPR, Allen suddenly felt like she had been engulfed by one of these big invisible bubbles.
"And all of a sudden your tongue gets this metal taste on it. And it feels like it's enlarging, and it just feels like you're not getting enough air in, because your throat gets real 'burn-y.' And the next thing I know, I ... passed out," Allen said.
Half a dozen of Allen's co-workers stopped coming in. One old-timer quit. No one can figure out what's going on. For doctors and nurses used to taking care of sick people, it's unnerving to suddenly be the patients.
"It's the unknown I think that's the scariest thing," she said.
Richard Rinehart, who runs the rural clinic, can't help but wonder whether the natural gas drilling going on all around the area may have something to do with what's been happening.
"I lay in bed at night thinking all kinds of theories. Is something coming through the air from some process that they're using? I know they use a lot of chemicals and so forth. Certainly that could be a culprit. We're wondering, Is something coming through the ground?" Rinehart said, noting that he'd just noticed a new drill on a hill overlooking the back of the clinic.
Now, no one knows whether the gas drilling has anything to do with the problems at the clinic. It could easily turn out to be something completely unrelated. There's a smelting plant down the road and old coal mines everywhere.
"Anything could be possible, and we just are trying to get to the root of it," he said.
Mysterious Symptoms, Lots Of Questions
People living near gas well drilling around the country are reporting similar problems, plus headaches, rashes, wheezing, aches and pains and other symptoms.
Doctors like Julie DeRosa, who works at Cornerstone, aren't sure how to help people with these mysterious symptoms.
"I don't want to ignore symptoms that may be clues to a serious condition. I also don't want to order a lot of unnecessary tests. I don't want to feed any kind of hysteria," DeRosa said.
To try to figure out what's going on, the clinic called the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which is investigating. It also started testing the air for chemicals, monitoring wind direction around the clinic and keeping diaries of everyone's symptoms. In addition, the clinic contacted Raina Rippel, project director for the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project.
The local nonprofit was set up recently to help people in this kind of situation. Her team tested tap water from inside a men's room and from a stream out back.
Rippel says she knows people in the area have a lot of questions: "Is my water fit to drink? Is the air fit to breathe? Am I going to suffer long-term health impacts from this?"
More at the linkKay Allen had just started work, and everything seemed quiet at the Cornerstone Care... more
-
-
It's been almost 35 years since Lois Gibbs became an environmental activist after she discovered her 7-year-old son's elementary school in Niagara Falls, N.Y., was built on a toxic waste dump.
This week, Gibbs was in West Virginia to hear the stories of women whose families live near mountaintop removal coal mining operations. Gibbs was one of three jurists in an effort by Appalachian women's groups to put the coal industry on trial.
On Thursday, women from across the coalfields of West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee gathered in Charleston to talk about blasting, dust and polluted water.
"The evidence we heard was compelling," Gibbs said Friday during a meeting with Gazette staffers.
Among other things, Gibbs and her fellow jurists heard from Beverly May, a family nurse practitioner from Kentucky. She gave a rundown of the studies by West Virginia University researcher Michael Hendryx and his colleagues that point to links between living near mountaintop removal and being more likely to get cancer or be born with birth defects.
"All of the research points to what mountain people have known since strip-mining began," May said. "It is not possible to destroy our mountains without destroy ourselves. It is not possible to poison our streams without poisoning our children."
Ivy Breshear, 23, said she's worried about having children, given the proximity of her homeplace in Eastern Kentucky to mountaintop removal operations.
"If we don't stand up for ourselves, we must stand up for future generations," Breshear said.
Janet Keating of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition said there has been a "deafening silence" from local political leaders about the WVU studies showing mining's relationship to public health problems.
"The industry has always said in the past, 'You just care about the mayflies and the salamanders,'" Keating said. "It's not just about mayflies and salamanders."
Coal industry officials favor mountaintop removal, saying the practice is the only efficient way to get at some thin seams of Southern West Virginia coal. The industry has also recently donated $15 million to a Virginia Tech-based project to produce reports that respond to scientific papers like those authored by Hendryx and by other researchers who have examined mining's impact on water quality.
Gibbs and her fellow jurors, Bolivian activist Elizabeth Peredo Beltran and Civil Society Institute energy analyst Grant Smith, recommended an immediate moratorium on mountaintop removal and more detailed studies on the practice's impacts on public health.
The Central Appalachian Women's Tribunal on Climate Justice was sponsored by Loretto, an international public interest group, and a variety of local organizations. Results of this week's tribunal will be delivered in June at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Brazil, along with information from other women's group tribunals on other issues around the globe.
More at the linkIt's been almost 35 years since Lois Gibbs became an environmental activist after... more
-
-
A relatively obscure Congressional hearing on Tuesday became a flashpoint in a very important conflict: the attempt by the chemical industry — led by Dow Chemical – to gain a veto over the work of government scientists. This time, however, the scientists fought back, and they need our support.
The hearing was a joint project of the House Small Business Committee and House Science Committee. It focused on how a government report on cancer-causing chemicals is hurting “small business” in America. The Report on Carcinogens, which recently classified formaldehyde as a “known carcinogen” and styrene as a “reasonably anticipated” human carcinogen was under attack. It is a statutorily mandated report that is prepared by the highly respected National Toxicology Program (NTP).
The hearing is part of a disturbing pattern of political intimidation of government scientists for doing their jobs. Companies that make and use both chemicals launched an attack on the report even before it was published and its publication was delayed for years. It took political courage for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow the report to be released, and I was told phones rang off the hook at the White House from chemical industry lobbyists complaining about the decision.
The Report itself does not restrict the chemicals it names. The findings can be used by regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to decide if any changes are needed to environmental rules, but they mostly inform the public and the marketplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that its safety data sheets be updated when the Report lists a chemical, a basic right-to-know measure for American workers.
So what was Dow complaining about at Tuesday’s hearing? Dow’s chief scientist Jim Bus effectively said that the NTP doesn’t do good science. Dow does good science. And the agency needs to give Dow and other companies a greater say in determinations like this for them to be credible with the public.
Never mind that the woman who runs the NTP and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — Dr. Linda Birnbaum — is perhaps the most credentialed person on the planet on these matters. Never mind the exhaustive peer-review and outside consultation that already takes place. No, we need Dow more involved, because the public certainly thinks chemical makers are more credible judges of the products they make than public health scientists whose only mandate is to identify substances that may be harming public health.
The arrogance and self-serving nature of Dow’s position was breath-taking, but the upside of the hearing was that it was also obvious and fell flat. Representative Brad Miller (D-NC) deserves special credit for blowing the whistle on the hearing, by pointing out that the styrene industry took credit for the fact that the hearing was taking place. Miller and Representatives Richmond (D-LA) and Tonko (D-NY) pointed out that industry opponents who would exonerate styrene and formaldehyde were hardly more credible than the NTP. Overall, the show trial intended by the hearing backfired on the inquisitors, Subcommittee Chairs Broun (R-GA) and Ellmers (R-NC).
But the issue requires continued vigilance. Already, the United States has lost the leadership of the world on health and safety issues in favor of the European Union, and that has an impact on our ability to compete in a world market that increasingly demands safer products. The modest attempts by EPA Administrator Jackson to restore that leadership have not only been undermined by House Republicans but in some cases by industry allies in the White House who have blocked key reforms. The attempt to politically intimidate Dr. Birnbaum would bring this trend to a new low, however, because it would signal that companies like Dow can block even the most basic scientific work from seeing the light of day when it offends them.
So please ask your member of Congress to support the independence of government scientists like Dr. Birnbaum at the NTP, but please also take a moment to tell Dow to back off and let government scientists do their job.
by Andy Igrejas
Source: http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/1aK8L)A relatively obscure Congressional hearing on Tuesday became a flashpoint in a very... more
-
-
Levels of copper, cadmium, lead and other metals in Southern California's coastal waters have plummeted over the past four decades, according to new research from USC.
Samples taken off the coast reveal that the waters have seen a 100-fold decrease in lead and a 400-fold decrease in copper and cadmium. Concentrations of metals in the surface waters off Los Angeles are now comparable to levels found in surface waters along a remote stretch of Mexico's Baja Peninsula.
Sergio Sanudo-Wilhelmy, who led the research team, attributed the cleaner water to sewage treatment regulations that were part of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and to the phase-out of leaded gasoline in the 1970s and 1980s.
"For the first time, we have evaluated the impact of the Clean Water Act in the waters of a coastal environment as extensive as Southern California," said Sanudo-Wilhelmy, professor of Biological and Earth sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
"We can see that if we remove the contaminants from wastewater, eventually the ocean responds and cleans itself. The system is resilient to some extent," he said.
The USC researchers compared water samples from roughly 30 locations between Point Dume to the north and Long Beach to the south to samples taken in the exact same locations in 1976 by two researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz: Kenneth Bruland and Robert Franks.
"We wanted to assume that the Clean Water Act was working, but we needed good data to allow us to compare water conditions 'before and after,'" he said.
"Fortunately for us, we have the data generated by Bruland and Franks. That gave us a rare opportunity to see the impact of cleaning our sewage and see the effect on the coastal ocean. The population of Southern California has increased in the last 40 years, the sewage treatment has been improved, and the levels of metals in the coastal ocean have declined."
Sanudo-Wilhelmy's team-which includes USC doctoral researcher Emily A. Smail and Eric A. Webb, associate professor at USC Dornsife-published its findings this month in Environmental Science and Technology.
More at the linkLevels of copper, cadmium, lead and other metals in Southern California's coastal... more
-
-
Scientists see rise in 2,4-D chemical use on farms
* Say human health and environment could suffer
* Dow defends corn, chemical as safe and well tested
* Government taking public comments through April 27
By Carey Gillam
April 26 (Reuters) - Opponents of a new biotech corn variety developed by Dow AgroSciences are making a final push to get U.S. regulators to reject Dow's application to roll out herbicide-tolerant crops that critics believe will wreak havoc on the environment and endanger human health.
Farmers, scientists and consumer groups scheduled a news conference on Thursday to urge U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to shut down Dow's regulatory application for a multi-crop project it calls "Enlist."
Opponents of Dow's new Enlist corn said opponents have submitted more than 350,000 letters, emails and other public comments against the product.
Dow wants to roll out Enlist corn, soybeans and cotton along with an Enlist herbicide that are able to survive dousings of a combination of the herbicide 2,4-D with glyphosate. The new chemical aims to wipe out weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate alone.
Dow officials voiced frustration with the activism of opponents. The company said it is trying to educate farmers and others about the benefits of its products, which it said are safe and well tested.
"This is going to be a solution that we are looking forward to bringing to farmers," said Joe Vertin, Dow's global business leader for Enlist.
Opponents say Dow's biotech corn and new highly potent herbicide would result in a substantial increase in the volume of chemicals sprayed across U.S. farm fields, damaging nearby crops, inciting increased weed resistance and possibly contributing to disease.
"Farmers are on the front lines of this potential chemical disaster," said Iowa conventional corn and soybean farmer George Naylor in a statement.
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the Vietnam War defoliant that was blamed for numerous health problems suffered during and after the war.
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center and former executive director of the agriculture board of the National Academy of Sciences, said widespread planting of 2,4-D corn could trigger as much as a 30-fold increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade.
Overall 2,4-D use in American agriculture would rise from 27 million pound to more than 100 million pounds and the release of 2,4-D soybeans and cotton following corn would boost usage still more, according to Benbrook.
Several medical and public health professionals have sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture warning of health threats that could accompany such an increase in 2,4-D use.
"Many studies show that 2,4 D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson's Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defects," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "USDA must take these significant risks seriously and reject approval of this crop."
More at the linkScientists see rise in 2,4-D chemical use on farms
* Say human health and... more
-
-
It may look like the it’s gone — but oil from the BP spill may be mixing with dispersants and being absorbed into your body.
That’s the disturbing revelation from a USF researcher in a story by Craig Pittman of the Tampa Bay Times.
Photos show that under a blue light, oily spots remain on the skin after bathing on panhandle beaches — even after a shower.
The two-year anniversary of the BP oil spill is later this week.
Pittman’s story also says dolphins are dying at a heightened rate and some fish species are showing DNA damage.
Geologist Rip Kirby examined the skin of a graduate student who swam in the gulf and then showered. Under regular light, his skin seemed clean, but ultraviolet light revealed orange blotches — dispersant-mixed oil.
Oil from Deepwater Horizon spill still causing damage in gulf 2 years later, scientists find
From the Times story:
The oil he found lies in what’s called the swash zone, just below where the waves lap against the sand. When a “plunge step” forms there, small flakes of weathered oil or even large tar patties settle there, mingled with shell debris, he found.
Studies have found that the dispersant used to break up the oil slick, Corexit, can be toxic to the bacteria that would normally gobble up oil in the gulf. That’s why the oil is still showing up two years later, he said. When Corexit bound with the oil, it prevented bacteria from consuming it.
The concentrations of toxic hydrocarbons in the flakes and patties are above the level considered to be dangerous under federal standards, he said. That’s what makes him so concerned about how quickly the dispersant-mixed oil absorbs into human skin.
Oil is affecting sealife too, resulting in low seafood catches. Read more
More at the linkIt may look like the it’s gone — but oil from the BP spill may be mixing... more
-
-
Talisman Energy and other corporations have set their sights on the Achuar cultural lands in Peru. This video made by the Achuar shows their life in pursuit of living with nature and their resistance to the oil companies looking to drill there. This is part of a global assault being waged upon indigenous people by oil and mining companies intent on stealing their resources and their cultures while totally ignoring their imput. Below will be a link to a petition you can sign to show support for the Achuar and other ways you can become involved in standing with them to preserve this beautiful land.Talisman Energy and other corporations have set their sights on the Achuar cultural... more
-
-
Monsanto, Philip Morris and other U.S. tobacco giants knowingly poisoned Argentinean tobacco farmers with pesticides, causing "devastating birth defects" in their children, dozens of workers claim in court. The farmers, on their own behalf and for their injured children, sued Altria Group fka Philip Morris Cos., Philip Morris USA, Carolina Leaf Tobacco, Universal Corporation fka Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Monsanto, and their affiliates and Argentine subsidiaries, in New Castle County Court.
The farmers grow tobacco on small family-owned farms in Misiones Province and sell it to U.S. tobacco distributors. Most of Argentina's tobacco is grown in Misiones, a rural northeastern province. The farmers claim the tobacco companies asked them to use herbicides, pesticides and other toxic products made and distributed by Monsanto, and assured them the products were safe.
They say the defendants "wrongfully caused the parental and infant plaintiffs to be exposed to those chemicals and substances which they both knew, or should have known, would cause the infant offspring of the parental plaintiffs to be born with devastating birth defects." Birth defects cited in the 55-page complaint include cerebral palsy, psychomotor retardation, epilepsy, spina bifida, intellectual disabilities, metabolic disorders, congenital heart defects, Down syndrome, missing fingers and blindness.
The farmers claim Philip Morris and Carolina Leaf used a tobacco brokerage company, Tabacos Norte, to buy tobacco from the farmers and sell them crop production supplies, including herbicides and pesticides. Tabacos Norte, based in Misiones, was created by Carolina Leaf and Philip Morris' Argentine subsidiary in 1984, to produce tobacco fit for the North and South American markets, according to the complaint. The farmers say the tobacco companies that bought their crops asked them to replace the native tobacco with a new type, used in Philip Morris cigarettes, which required more pesticides.
They say the defendants pushed for excessive use of pesticides and failed to warn them of the dangers or provide them with information or protective gear. Most farmers in Misiones used Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide made by Monsanto, to kill weeds and clear tobacco fields, according to the complaint. Monsanto and Philip Morris told them to use glyphosate frequently and in quantities beyond that necessary for effective weed control, the farmers say.
"Monsanto defendants, the Philip Morris defendants, and the Carolina Leaf defendants promoted the use of Roundup and other herbicides to tobacco farmers in Misiones even though they were on direct and explicit notice that at all relevant times farmers in Misiones, including the instant plaintiffs, lacked the necessary personal protective equipment and other safety knowledge and skills required to minimize harmful exposures to Roundup," the complaint states.
"What is more, at all relevant times Tabacos Norte, the Monsanto defendants, the Philip Morris defendants, and the Carolina Leaf defendants did not recommend protective measures to farmers and their families in Misiones. In fact, aforementioned defendants actively recommended and/or required that contracted tobacco farmers, including the instant plaintiffs, purchase excessive quantities of Roundup and other pesticides.
"At all relevant times, defendants were on direct and explicit notice that fruits, vegetables and farm animals designated for family consumption would be contaminated with pesticides including Roundup if contract farmers followed the defendants' aggressive chemical application specifications for tobacco cultivation." Monsanto's pesticides contaminated the farmers' non-tobacco crops, water wells and streams meant for family use, exposing their families to the toxic substances, the farmer say.
"The plaintiff tobacco farmers' lack of training and instruction on the safe disposal of unused Roundup and other pesticides caused further exposure," the complaint states. "Leftover pesticides were discarded in locations where they leached into the water supply." The farmers claim their exposure to the pesticides caused their children's birth defects.
More at the linkMonsanto, Philip Morris and other U.S. tobacco giants knowingly poisoned Argentinean... more
-
-
Mr. Kyl and Mr. McCain have introduced a bill known as the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement, which would require the tribes to waive their water rights for “time immemorial” in exchange for groundwater delivery projects to three remote communities.
The tribes must sign off on the settlement, along with 30 other entities including Congress and the president, before the bill becomes law.
Mr. Kyl said the bill was on a “fast track” and he would like to see it pushed through Congress before this session ends. But the outcome is uncertain, as there is a disagreement within the Navajo and Hopi governments over whether or not to endorse the bill, as well as disapproval within the communities, which are pushing for more public hearings.
The settlement would benefit the two tribes by providing clean drinking water piped directly into their homes, Mr. Kyl said. There is very little surface water on the two reservations, he said, adding that most of the water that does exist is in aquifers and the tribes can’t afford to build the infrastructure necessary to gain access to it.
What the tribes would lose by settling is a crucial bargaining chip. Other parties, including Peabody Coal and two other corporations, want the water for ranching, farming and coal mining operations. Coal mining in particular uses copious amounts of water for its slurries.
The tiny Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the much larger Navajo reservation, which covers 27,000 square miles of land over sections of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Many homes lack indoor plumbing, and one out of three families on the Navajo reservation does not have access to a public drinking water system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some wells and springs are still contaminated with uranium and other toxic heavy metals, a legacy of 40 years of mining.
In an arid region where water is scarce, some tribal leaders are in favor of settling their claims in exchange for running water. But the bill has also stirred some controversy among environmental groups and tribe members, who say that their leaders didn’t inform them about the details.
“Water is life, and when you take away our water, you take away our lives,” said Ed Becenti, a Navajo grass-roots organizer. He said that after the meeting, which took place behind closed doors, a crowd of about 200 milling outside followed the senators to their cars chanting “Kill bill 2109″ and “Leave our water alone.”
He said that Senator Kyl should “meet with the Navajo and Hopi grass-roots representation on the settlement agreement and go over it in detail.” He added, “Our tribal leaders have evidently dropped the ball on this one.”
Several environmental groups also oppose the bill. The Grand Canyon Trust, which was recently successful in halting new mining claims on federal land around the Grand Canyon, characterized the bill on its Web site as containing “several dangerous provisions that require a permanent waiver” of water rights.
More at the linkMr. Kyl and Mr. McCain have introduced a bill known as the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado... more
-
-
A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team has found that a sharp jump in earthquakes in America’s heartland appears to be linked to oil and natural gas drilling operations.
As hydraulic fracturing has exploded onto the scene, it has increasingly been connected to earthquakes. Some quakes may be caused by the original fracking — that is, by injecting a fluid mixture into the earth to release natural gas (or oil). More appear to be caused by reinjecting the resulting brine deep underground.
Last August, a USGS report examined a cluster of earthquakes in Oklahoma and reported:
Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased.
In November, a British shale gas developer found it was “highly probable” its fracturing operations caused minor quakes.
Then last month, Ohio oil and gas regulators said “A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater into the earth.”
Now, in a paper to be deliver at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America, the USGS notes that “a remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude 3.0] and greater earthquakes is currently in progress” in the U.S. midcontinent. The abstract is online. EnergyWire reports (subs. req’d) some of the findings:
The study found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude-3.0, the abstract states, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last year is a sixfold increase over 20th century levels.
The surge in the last few years corresponds to a nationwide surge in shale drilling, which requires disposal of millions of gallons of wastewater for each well. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, shale gas production grew, on average, nearly 50 percent a year from 2006 to 2010.
The USGS scientists point out that ”a naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region.” They conclude:
While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.
EnergyWire points out, “all of the potential causes they explore in the paper relate to drilling, or more specifically, deep underground injection of drilling waste.”
More at the linkA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team has found that a sharp jump in earthquakes in... more
-
-
The world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.
Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont’s Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.
The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.
Instead, they’re calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.
What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont’s “right to know” bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a “low appetite” for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.
What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.
Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.
Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company’s stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as “natural.”
All of Monsanto’s fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16. During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill - more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMO’s are safe and that consumers don’t need to know if their food is contaminated with them.
More at the linkThe world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.... more
-
-
Meet Rod Brueske. Like thousands of Coloradans, his family and property is being threatened by fracking. Watch the video, and then join Food & Water Watch's campaign to ban fracking now in Colorado: www.foodandwaterwatch.orgMeet Rod Brueske. Like thousands of Coloradans, his family and property is being... more
-
-
CAMERON, Ariz. — In the summer of 2010, a Navajo cattle rancher named Larry Gordy stumbled upon an abandoned uranium mine in the middle of his grazing land and figured he had better call in the feds. Engineers from the Environmental Protection Agency arrived a few months later, Geiger counters in hand, and found radioactivity levels that buried the needles on their equipment.
The abandoned mine here, about 60 miles east of the Grand Canyon, joins the list of hundreds of such sites identified across the 27,000 square miles of Navajo territory in Arizona, Utah and New Mexico that are the legacy of shoddy mining practices and federal neglect. From the 1940s through the 1980s, the mines supplied critical materials to the nation’s nuclear weapons program.
For years, unsuspecting Navajos inhaled radioactive dust and drank contaminated well water. Many of them became sick with cancer and other diseases.
The radioactivity at the former mine is said to measure one million counts per minute, translating to a human dose that scientists say can lead directly to malignant tumors and other serious health damage, according to Lee Greer, a biologist at La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif. Two days of exposure at the Cameron site would expose a person to more external radiation than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers safe for an entire year.
The E.P.A. filed a report on the rancher’s find early last year and pledged to continue its environmental review. But there are still no warning signs or fencing around the secluded and decaying site. Crushed beer cans and spent shell casings dot the ground, revealing that the old mine has become a sort of toxic playground.
“If this level of radioactivity were found in a middle-class suburb, the response would be immediate and aggressive,” said Doug Brugge, a public health professor at Tufts University medical school and an expert on uranium. “The site is remote, but there are obviously people spending time on it. Don’t they deserve some concern?”
Navajo advocates, scientists and politicians are asking the same question.
More at the linkCAMERON, Ariz. — In the summer of 2010, a Navajo cattle rancher named Larry... more
-
-
The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to ban BPA from all food and drink containers, saying the science does not show an immediate cause for such action.
However, the federal agency cautioned that this ruling does not declare bisphenol A, or BPA, as safe. The agency says it is continuing its assessment of the chemical, which is used in the lining of most canned food and drinks.
Friday's action comes as a response to a petition filed in 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that the chemical poses a serious threat to human health.
"The FDA denied the NRDC petition today because it did not provide the scientific evidence needed to change current regulations, but this announcement is not a final safety determination and the FDA continues to support research examining the safety of BPA," said FDA spokesman Douglas Karas.
Karas said the FDA's recent research thus far indicates:
Exposure to BPA of human infants is from 84% to 92% less than previously estimated.
The level of BPA from food that could be passed from pregnant rodents to their unborn offspring is so low that it could not be measured. Researchers fed pregnant rodents 100 to 1,000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus eight hours after the mother's exposure.
People of all ages process and rid their bodies of BPA faster than the rodents used as test animals do.
The FDA continues to study the effects of BPA and will make any necessary changes to BPA's status based on the science, Karas said.
Sarah Janssen, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized the federal agency for failing to ban BPA.
"BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply," she said.
"The agency has failed to protect our health and safety - in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children."
Chemical industry lobbyists praised the government decision.
"FDA's decision today, which has taken into consideration the best available science, again confirms that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials, as it has been approved and used safely for four decades," said Steve Hentges, senior scientist with the American Chemistry Council.
While the chemistry council is characterizing Friday's move as the government "closing the books" on the petition, it does not mean that the FDA has decided once and for all that BPA is safe.
BPA, a synthetic estrogen developed more than 70 years ago, came into wide use in the 1960s and 1970s to make polycarbonate plastic for such things as baby bottles. It is also used as an epoxy resin to line metal cans. BPA can be found in cellphones, dental sealants, eyeglasses, as a coating for cash register receipts and hundreds of other household items.
It has been detected in the urine of more than 93% of Americans tested.
'Serious questions'
Karas said FDA regulators had "serious questions" about studies that found harm to human health.
The FDA is working toward completion of another updated safety review on BPA this year to include all relevant studies and publications.
The agency's move Friday was criticized by Environmental Working Group, which has lobbied to remove BPA from food and food containers, particularly baby bottles and infant formula.
"The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement," said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. "It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
Scientists first became concerned about BPA in the 1990s when rats stored in polycarbonate cages began miscarrying and showing other signs of reproductive failure. Since then, thousands of studies have linked BPA to health problems.
BPA is regarded by scientists as particularly concerning for fetuses and infants. The effects have been found at low doses, hundreds of times smaller than governmental regulatory agencies have determined to be safe.
Industry revenue from BPA is estimated at more than $6 billion a year.
Chemical makers maintain the chemical is safe for all uses.
~~~~~~
Related Coverage
Warning: Chemicals in the packaging, surfaces or contents of many products may cause long-term health effects, including cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other reproductive system defects; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism. A decade ago, the government promised to test these chemicals. It still hasn't.
More at the linkThe Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to... more
-
-
Warsaw - Around 1,500 beekeepers in Warsaw made a strong point by dumping thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture recently.
On 15 March 2012, a protest was held against genetically modified foods and pesticides, largely responsible for killing bees, butterflies and moths in huge numbers. The loss of these beneficial pollinators is extremely dangerous to the eco-system.
A protest march was held with beekeepers and anti-GMO protesters wearing yellow and black striped jackets and traditional beekeeper costumes. As they marched, the sound of buzzing filled the air and they ran their hive smoke guns as they walked.
The march was organized by the Polish Beekeepers Association together with the Coalition for a GMO Free Poland and the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC). Protesters were targeting Monsanto's MON810, which has apparently produced millions of hectares of pesticide resistant "superweeds" in the U.S.A.
The protesters also called for a complete ban on all genetically engineered crops and pesticides found to be most damaging to the environment (and particularly to bees).
The good news is that later in the day, the Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki announced plans to ban MON810 in Poland.
The Polish Parliament banned GM feed in 2008, which included both the importation and planting of GM crops. However, Food Travels state that "Despite this progressive step, the European Commission has refused to accept regional bans on GMOs, keeping Polish farmers, producers, and activists on the offensive."
Also, says the ICPPC, "None of the nine European Union countries that have already prohibited MON 810 did so by asking the permission of the EU."
They are requesting that Polish residents write to the Minister of Agriculture to demand that he immediately implements a moratorium on GM crops, without awaiting EU approval.
SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE PROTESTERS:
Strong Beekeepers Protest and motion for a ban of the GM maize MON810 in Poland!
A powerful symbolic drama was staged by members of The Coalition for a GMO Free Poland in which thousands of dead bees were laid out on the Ministry steps SEE PHOTOS AND FILMS [at http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321905 ].
The Minister of Agriculture, Mr Sawicki, never appeared. However he later saw a delegation in his office and, during a public broadcast, announced that he had set in motion a ban of the GM maize MON810...
At first glance this appeared to be a genuine prohibition, however, such is the nature of the modern politician that in the smaller print was the statement that 'this would only be possible with the permission of the European Commission':
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Your help might make all the difference in getting Mr Sawicki to introduce the all important ban of MON 810.
Please do write to him demanding that he does not 'wait for European Commission's approval' but gets on and does the job! This is what the other 9 EU countries have done. Please do it! And do send us a copy of your letter.
The address you need is here:
The Minister of Agriculture, Mr Marek Sawicki
e-mail: marek.sawicki@minrol.gov.plWarsaw - Around 1,500 beekeepers in Warsaw made a strong point by dumping thousands of... more
-
