tagged w/ Monsanto
-
-
– Monsanto, the multinational agricultural biotech giant, is also the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seeds. Notorious for its aggressive and heavy handed business tactics, and questionable ethics– Monsanto, the multinational agricultural biotech giant, is also the... more
-
-
Colorado’s Boulder County was the latest health freedom hotspot to stand up against Monsanto and genetically modified produce, with Boulder County advisory committees announcing plans to phase out GMO crops on open space in pursuit of sustainable and ethical farming practices.
The county joins a long list of other political bodies that have banned, condemned, and even uprooted GMO crops across the globe.
Both the Food and Agriculture Policy Council and the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee of Boulder Country voted 5-4 to phase out GMOs in an economically viable way. The transition proves that it is possible to be environmentally conscious, preserve the health of citizens, and still maintain economic stability.
Genetically modified corn has been growing on around 16,000 acres of cropland owned by the county for around a decade. In 2009, public concern over the consequences of GMO crops sparked public debate within the county. Citizens demanded that GMO crops be banned after 6 local farmers asked permission to plant sugar beets that were engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup.
Nations Starting to Ban and Uproot GMO Crops
Hungary has gained international recognition for their bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto, destroying all Monsanto corn fields littered with GMO crops. The nation destroyed 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, which are banned in the country. Many of the farmers were actually shocked to find they were using GMO seeds, which are resulting in extreme environmental consequence.
Peru has also taken a stand for health freedom, passing a monumental 10 year ban on genetically modified foods. Amazingly, Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. The known and unknown dangers of GMO crops seem to supersede even executive-level governmental directives.
Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the ”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”
When the people demand anti-GMO action from the government, they are oftentimes forced to listen.
There is an increasing consensus among consumers that they want safe, local, organic fresh food and that they want the environment and wildlife to be protected,” wrote Walter Pengue from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, in a recent statement concerning GMOs in South America. “South American countries must proceed with a broader evaluation of their original agricultural policies and practices using the precautionary principle.
Political displays of defiance against Monsanto and genetically modified foods is the best method of combating their existence. As more political bodies worldwide begin to take a stand against GMOs, Monsanto will be forced to retreat from the food supply.
(click on the link to access in-text links)Colorado’s Boulder County was the latest health freedom hotspot to stand up... more
-
-
Lots and lots of Monsanto email addresses in here.
Last Name First Name E-mail: Company Name Address: Address 2: City: State: Zip: Phone: Country:
Aaberg Dale gail.l.merkel@monsanto.com Corn States, LLC 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis Missouri 63167 United States
Aasen Paul Dairyland Seed Co., Inc. 9728 S. Clinton Corners Rd. Clinton WI 53525 United States
Abdennadher Mourad mourad.abdennadher@monsanto.com Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Creve Coeur MO 63167 314-694-6957 United States
ABDUS SAMI MOHAMMED sami@deccan-developers.com DECCAN DEVELOPERS 17-1-197, SANTOSH NAGAR HYDERABAD ANDHRA PADESH 500029 32581889 India
Abel Bryce babel@mbsgenetics.com MBS Genetics, LLC 225 West 1st Street Story City IA 50248 515-733-5274 United States
Acevedo Javier jacevedo@winterseed.com Winter Seed Camino La Punta Km 1 Mortazal 56-72-491371 Chile
Ackerman Paul teresa.deventer@precisionsoya.com Precision Soya, LLC 6501 Constitution Drive Fort Wayne IN 46804 260-459-9353 United States
Acord Nancy Corn States St. Louis MO United States
Adams Brian brian.w.adams@monsanto.com Monsanto Company 305 Graywynd Court Lake Saint Louis MO 63367 314-974-5550 United States
Adams Paul adamseed@runestone.net Thunder Seed 30145 290th Ave Wendell MN 56590 United States
Adcock Dan dnadcock@landolakes.com Winfield Solutions, LLC 4086 Caladium Road Pinckneyville Illinois 62274 618-318-5679 United States
Adrian Rene radrianus@gmail.com Nidera S.A. 9697 W. Main Kalamazoo MI 49009 United States
Aeschlimann Jorge jaeschlimann@tie.cl Grupo SEM Av. Kennedy 5454 Santiago 56 2 2064657 Chile
Aguilera Alberto aaguiler@uoguelph.ca University of Guelph 50 Stone Rd. E., University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G2W1 519-835-5259 Canada
Ahrens Doug daherns@oxbocorp.com Oxbo 100 Bean Street Clear Lake Wisconsin 54005 United States
Ahring Steve steve@delangeseed.com DeLange Seed, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Girard KS 66743 620-724-6223 United States
Aker Cameron FFR 4846 East 450 North Lafayete IN 47905 United States
Akpertey Abraham University of Illinois 1904 B South Orchard St Urbana IL 61801 United States
Alamos Victor vcalamos@tuniche.cl Semillas Tuniche Ltda Malaga 115 Of. 601 Las Condes Santiago -1603 Chile
Alamos Concha Victor vcalamos@tuniche.cl Semillas Tuniche, Ltda Malaga 115 DI-601 - Las Condes Santiago 56-2-2071450 United States
Alber Harald harald.al ber@zuern.de Zurn Domane Hohebuch 5 D-74638 Waldenburg Germany
Albers Erich erich.h.albers@monsanto.com Corn States, LLC 130 Osterhage Drive Waterloo IL 62298 314-606-6605 United States
Albertson James jcalbert@wisc.edu Wisconsin Foundation Seeds W6618 CTY Rd K Arlington WI 53911 (608)846-9761 United States
Albertson Marc marc.albertson@pioneer.com Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont business 7250 NW 62nd Ave, PO Box 552 Johnston IA 50131-0552 515-270-3648 United States
Alcorn Matt teresa.deventer@precisionsoya.com Precision Soya, LLC 6501 Constitution Drive Fort Wayne IN 46804 260-459-9353 United States
Alderks David david.j.alderks@monsanto.com Monsanto Company 14901 Asgrow Rd Farmer City IL 61842 309-928-9445 United States
Alexander Larry larry@alexanderatlaw.biz Wm. Larry Alexander, Attorney at Law, P.A. 1957 Oak Street Hastings MN 55033-3542 651 319 0072 United States
Allegretti John cja@arrowsupinc.com Arrows Up,Inc. PO Box 3374 Barrington IL 60010-3374 847-381-2658 United States
Allen Heidi shaen.inglis@wellsfargo.com United States
Allen Kate United States
Allison Dr. James aggie.allison@gmail.com Golden Acres Genetics, Ltd. PO Box 20787 Waco TX 76702 254-761-9838
Alsop Ben bpalso@monsanto.com Monsanto Company 410 Bullen Road Arlington WI 53911 608-635-1017 United States
Althoff Victor victora@ameriglobe-fibc.com AmeriGlobe LLC 153 South Long St. Lafayette LA 46360 866-264-5623 United States
Amaral Bruno daamaral@dow.com Dow AgroSciences Rod. Anhanguera, km 344 Jardinopolis São Paulo 14680-000 55 16 3690 1542 Brazil
Amberger Christoph c.amberger@kws.com KWS Seeds, Inc. 1788 Marshall Road Shakopee MN 55379 9524458090
Ambrose Jacob jacob.ambrose@armorycap.com Armory Capital United States
Ames Keith kaames@illinois.edu University of Illinois 1102 South Goodwin Ave Urbana IL 61801 217-244-0506 United States
Amusan Idris idris.amusan@AgReliantGenetics.com AgReliant Genetics, LLC 2201-229th Place Ames Iowa 50014 515 509 8248 United States
Anas Jose Pablo Soto jpsoto@iastate.edu Iowa State Seed Science Center Ames IA 50011 515-294-0661 United States
Andersen Scott sandersen@kubtec.com Kubtec X-Ray 270 Rowe Avenue Unit E Milford CT 6460 203-364-8544 United States
Anderson Brian banderson@mfa-inc.com MFA Incorporated 201 Ray Young Dr. Columbia MO 65201 573-876-5285 United States
Anderson Craig craig.anderson@agreliant.com AgReliant Genetics, LLC 1122 E. 169th Street Westfield IN 46074 317-896-5552
Anderson Dan negold@monsanto.com Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis MO 63167 636-448-0737 United States
Anderson David ddanderson2@dow.com Dow AgroSciences 9330 Zionsville, Road Indianapolis in 46268 317-337-3048
Anderson Joseph janderson@purdue.edu Purdue University Department of Agronomy, 915 West State Street West Lafayette IN 47907-2054 765-494-4774 United States
Anderson Matt manderson@pickseed.com Pickseed 1 Greenfield Road Lindsay ON K9V 4S3 705-878-9240 Canada
Anderson Neal njandrsn@myclearwave.net Anderson Seeds 37825 County Road 63 St. Peter Minnesota 56082 1 507 246 5032 United States
Anderson Richard rcanderson2@dow.com Dow AgroSciences 1613 Ira Ave. Storm Lake Iowa 50588 712-299-0646 United States
Anderson Adam adam.anderson@pannarusa.com Pannar Seed Inc. 2155 West Lincoln Olivia MN 56277 United States
Anderson Bill Oxbo 100 Bean Street Clear Lake Wisconsin 54005 United States
Anderson Greg greg.anderson@basf.com BASF Plant Science PO Box 359 Weldon IL 61882 United States
Anderson Mike mike.anderson@bratney.com Bratney Companies 3400 109th Street Des Moines IA 50322 United States
Anderson Ron akdron@akdco.com A&K Development Co. 410 Chambers St. Eugene OR 97402 541-685-0012 United States
Andrew Melissa mandrew@mbsgenetics.com MBS Genetics, L.L.C. 225 West 1st Street Story City Iowa 50248 800-247-3967 United States
Andrieux Marc marc.andrieux@bayer.com Bayer CropScience 2 TW Alexander drive RTP NC 27709 919-549-2232 United States
(it just keeps going, and going.... more @ link)
https://pastee.org/nf6c5Lots and lots of Monsanto email addresses in here.
Last Name First Name E-mail:... more
-
-
Truth be told, there were tears in my eyes as I sat there, translating and tweeting amongst the bustling crowd of media and hundreds of people, most of them farmers. After an intensive public trial covering a range of human rights violations, on December 6, the jurors issued a scathing verdict to the six largest pesticide and biotechnology corporations, urging governments to take action to prevent further harm. The crowd erupted in a roar of applause, and later, congratulations were shared in at least seven languages.
The verdict was handed down to the six largest pesticide corporations — Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow and Dupont — collectively known as the “Big 6,” for their human rights violations, including internationally recognized rights to life, livelihood and health. The agrichemical industry is valued at over $42 billion and operates with impunity while over 355,000 people die from pesticide poisoning every year, and hundreds of thousands more are made ill. In addition, pesticide corporations have put livelihoods and jobs in jeopardy, including those of farmers, beekeepers and indigenous peoples.
The preliminary findings, to be elaborated and finalized by the jury over the next two weeks, include these recommendations for governments:
Prosecute corporations for criminal liability, rather than civil liability only;
Fully commit to and legislate for the precautionary principle; and
Prevent corporations from directly or indirectly harassing and intimidating scientists, farmers and human rights and environmental defenders, in any form.
The tribunal was only made possible through the incredible collaboration of many people — and the support of 400 organizations and more than 7,000 individual people, worldwide. The Center for Food Safety, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, and Farmworker Association of Florida were key contributors in United States.
As for my part, I'm elated and exhausted, both. But that's just tonight. Tomorrow, it's time for the planning meeting for what comes next, and I'm energized and honored to take part, and for PAN to be part of the growing momentum around the world that seeks an end to corporate abuse, putting fairness and dignity in its place.
Nearly 30 years after the the original "Dirty Dozen" campaign that launched PAN International, I feel another global groundswell coming on.
more at the linkTruth be told, there were tears in my eyes as I sat there, translating and tweeting... more
-
-
The verdict as well as closing remarks will be given December 6, 3:30 PM Bangalore India time. That should be around 5AM standard EST here for anyone interested in seeing justice done. I wll report on any other information I get about this.
I hope this is only a first step to bringing accountability to these purveyors of global toxicity and death.The verdict as well as closing remarks will be given December 6, 3:30 PM Bangalore... more
-
-
Monsanto Co. corn that's genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms in four states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said.
Rootworms in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska are suspected of developing tolerance to the plants’ insecticide, based on documented cases of severe crop damage and reports from entomologists, the EPA said in a memo dated Nov. 22 and posted Nov. 30 on a government website. Monsanto's program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is "inadequate," the EPA said.
"Resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which 'unexpected damage' reports originated," the EPA said in the memo, which reviewed damage reports.
The insects, which begin life as root-chewing grubs before developing into adult beetles, are among the most destructive corn pests, costing U.S. farmers about $1 billion a year in damages and chemical pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, introduced its rootworm-killing corn technology 2003. The modified corn was planted on more than 37 million acres this year, Lee Quarles, a spokesman for St. Louis-based Monsanto, said yesterday. Corn is Monsanto's largest business, accounting for 41 percent of its $11.8 billion of sales during the fiscal year ended Aug. 31.
University Study
An Iowa State University study said in July that some rootworms have evolved resistance to an insect-killing protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a natural insecticide engineered into Monsanto corn. Entomologists in Illinois and other Midwestern states are studying possible resistance where the insects devour roots of Monsanto's Bt corn.
Monsanto continues to believe there's no scientific confirmation of resistance to its Bt corn, Quarles said by telephone. Still, Monsanto takes the EPA report "seriously" and is increasing efforts to teach farmers how to respond to unexpected damage in their fields, he said.
Less than 0.2 percent of the acres planted with Monsanto's Bt corn were affected by unexpected rootworm damage this year, Quarles said. Farmers with root damage in their fields should consider changing practices to "stay ahead of this insect," Monsanto said in a statement. That could include rotating corn with soybeans or using a product such as Monsanto's SmartStax corn, which kills rootworms with two types of Bt, the company said.
SmartStax Corn
The agency said in the memo that using SmartStax in fields where the bugs have developed resistance to Bt corn could hasten resistance to SmartStax because SmartStax's effectiveness is predicated on both types of Bt working as designed. SmartStax corn produces the second type of Bt with a gene licensed from Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
The EPA tries to deter resistance to Bt corn by requiring farmers to plant corn that doesn't produce the pesticide alongside the modified crop. This creates a so-called refuge of unexposed bugs that can mate with insects developing resistance, creating a second generation of bugs that's susceptible to the toxin.
The EPA's requirement of a refuge equal to at least 5 percent of a SmartStax crop, compared with 20 percent for Bt corn, "will be substantially less durable and could ultimately compromise the second unrelated toxin used to control the pest" if insects are already resistant to Monsanto’s Bt, the agency said in the memo.
Monsanto Tests
Monsanto should enact a remedial action plan in fields where resistance to the Bt insecticide is suspected, the EPA said. That includes having growers use conventional pesticide to kill adult rootworm beetles late in the season and alternate pest control methods in the following season.
Monsanto tested rootworms for resistance in Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa and should expand the monitoring to Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota and western Wisconsin because questions about the performance of Bt corn extends to all seven states, the EPA said in the memo.
http://www.agricorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/monsanto-corn-300x225.jpgMonsanto Co. corn that's genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its... more
-
-
Miscarriages. Cancers. The loss of a job or an entire way of life. It's never easy to talk publicly about personal pain. That's why the stories of Vi, David, Juana, Mildre and Jeff are so powerful. In their own words, they talk about the harms that pesticides cause. On video, to millions of people.
Their point: ensure that someday, pesticide corporations are no longer above the law when it comes to our health, our economy and our well-being. Watch these extraordinary, brave individuals tell their truths.
This week, PAN International launches our 'people's trial' against the Big 6 pesticide corporations in Bangalore, India. People around the world are showing up and testifying. A jury will listen, confer and issue a verdict.
PAN's point: hold global pesticide corporations to account for damages done.
snip
During the next seven days, join Vi, David, Juana, Mildre, Jeff and many others by watching the video, and sharing their stories with others through your own networks — by email, on facebook or twitter. Only together can we stand up and hold these corporations to account.
More news and videos at the link.Miscarriages. Cancers. The loss of a job or an entire way of life. It's never... more
-
-
Last week Toxic Free North Carolina released our latest Farm Worker Documentary Project film, Overworked & Under Spray. It’s a short piece featuring six high school-aged farmworkers’ stories about being sprayed with agricultural pesticides while tending crops in fields across the state.
For two months this summer, I crisscrossed the eastern side of North Carolina with our Student Action with Farmworkers intern Abi Bissette. We visited farmworker families in their homes, giving out pesticide safety information and discussing their rights as farmworkers. By midsummer we had assembled a group of motivated, articulate teenagers willing to speak out on film.
The young farmworkers cultivated and harvested blueberries, strawberries, sweet potatoes, green beans, grapes, cucumbers and tobacco. Here’s Felix Rodriguez, one of the youth featured in the film:
You could see the spray coming at you...but we kept on working. The next day I didn't feel so good. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about pesticides to the owner or supervisor because they'll see you as nagging. They just really want you to work.
Enough is enough
When we asked the youth how they would fix the situation, they had a lot of impressively astute answers: put more inspectors in the fields, get rid of child labor in agriculture, make stronger regulations for crew leaders. But one message we heard loud and clear from everyone interviewed was “enough is enough.”
The exploitation of children (or anyone) for cheap food — and the poisoning of the people who work to fill our grocery store shelves — has gone on far too long. It’s time for eaters of conscience to demand an end to abusive, toxic agriculture.
More at the linkLast week Toxic Free North Carolina released our latest Farm Worker Documentary... more
-
-
Martek Biosciences claims that its Life'sDHA and Life'sARA are non-GMO, but their patents reveal that their DHA and ARA are produced through the use of genetic engineering.
Hundreds of grocery items, including many certified "USDA Organic" infant formulas, baby foods and dairy products, contain Life'sDHA and Life'sARA.
Tell the National Organic Standards Board to Reject Martek's Petition for Life'sDHA and Life'sARA!
Take Action Now!
In 2009, a front page Washington Post article, "Integrity of Federal 'Organic' Label Questioned." explained how Martek Biosciences' synthetic DHA and ARA ended up in organic infant formula. In 2006, National Organic Program staff told Martek that its synthetic DHA and ARA couldn't be used in organic because they were synthetic and not on the National List. But, Martek's lawyer, J. Friedman, was able to get their decision reversed by NOP director Barbara Robinson, with just a call and an email. He told the Washington Post, "I called Robinson up, I wrote an e-mail. It was a simple matter."
This might be how the 1% get things done in Washington, but it sure isn't legal!
The National Organic Program is trying to remedy this situation by requiring Martek to formally ask permission to use its DHA and AHA in organic.
But Martek's products should never have even been considered for use in organic in the first place. According to patents uncovered by the Cornucopia Institute, all of Martek's DHA and ARA products are produced through genetic engineering and processed with solvents like hexane, two things that are expressly banned from USDA Organic.
The Cornucopia Institute also found documents submitted by Martek to the FDA, in which the company claimed their DHA was just like Monsanto's. A Martek representative clarified that its DHA was not developed by Monsanto, but that Monsanto did briefly own the technology before it reverted back to Martek.
Martek's patents for Life'sDHA states: "includes mutant organisms" and "recombinant organisms", (a.k.a. GMOs!) The patents explain that the oil is "extracted readily with an effective amount of solvent … a preferred solvent is hexane."
The patent for Life'sARA states: "genetically-engineering microorganisms to produce increased amounts of arachidonic acid" and "extraction with solvents such as ... hexane."
Martek has many other patents for DHA and ARA. All of them include GMOs. GMOs and volatile synthetic solvents like hexane aren't allowed in USDA Organic products and ingredients. Tragically, Martek's Life'sDHA is already in hundreds of products, many of them certified USDA Organic.
Please demand that the National Organic Standards Board reject Martek's petition, and that the USDA National Organic Program inform the company that the illegal 2006 approval is rescinded and that their GMO, hexane-extracted Life'sDHA and Life'sARA are no longer allowed in organic products.
More at the linkMartek Biosciences claims that its Life'sDHA and Life'sARA are non-GMO, but... more
-
-
The largest producer of transgenic seeds in the world is leasing some of the best agricultural lands on the Island with a pattern of questionable legality, while receiving incentives from the Fortuño administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When environmentalist Juan Rosario traveled to an Amish religious community in Iowa, to learn to make compost, he was surprised that they had a laboratory and the services of an expert in chemistry. What was a scientist doing in a place where people live far from technology and practice ecological farming with the simplest of methods?
An Amish dressed in their style, with a wide-brimmed black hat, white shirt, and black pants and black jacket, pointed toward a large cornfield on a nearby farm. "The scientist helps us verify that pollen from genetically modified corn does not contaminate our crops," he told Juan Rosario. "It's the same corn that you develop in Salinas."
Puerto Rico, laboratory for corn, sorghum, cotton and transgenic soybeans.
The island is hosting a reality that the government hides and sponsors: the island is an important center for eight companies, seven of them multinationals, that are developing the first generation of genetically modified seeds for distribution to United States and around the world. The strongholds of these corporations extend into public and private farms, especially in the best farmland along the island's southern coast, which in the last century was under the rule of His Majesty sugarcane, exalted by large landowners that sought to take over the land.
Most of these seed developers occupy more than the 500-acre limit that the Constitution of Puerto Rico allows, while receiving hefty government benefits and advantages under the Law to Promote and Develop Agricultural Biotechnology Companies of 2009, tailored to favor them.
Among them is the world's main transgenic seed developer, Monsanto, which leases about 1,500 acres of land between Juana Díaz, Santa Isabel, Isabela and Aguadilla. Of these acres, 500 are public property administered by the Land Authority, and the rest belongs mostly to the Succession Serrallés in several southern towns, confirmed Juan Santiago, the company's chief operating officer in Puerto Rico.
But having more than 500 acres is an apparent violation to the provisions of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which prevents an agricultural corporation to own more than 500 acres. The purpose of Section 14 of Article VI was to prevent American landlords to come implement a monopoly and squeeze out the smaller local farmer.
New settlers
Are we facing a new colonization of agriculture? Is it the beginning of a new monopoly? "While Monsanto is leasing those lands, and although many of these lands are private, I believe they may be violating the Constitution because its intention was to prevent a single corporation from having control of more than 500 acres to dominate agriculture," says professor Carlos Ramos, specialist in the field and professor at the at Interamerican University Law School. "If this law no longer makes sense, let's open the debate. The intent of the law is as valid today as in the 1900's. The Justice Secretary is required to enforce the Constitution and must act."
The events of the agricultural history are repeating themselves. As was the case with some sugar corporations over the past century, one of these companies, Monsanto, changes names to access more land than allowed by law, said a source at the Center for Investigative Journalism. So this media outlet went to the corporation registry at State Department to confirm this. Carlos Morales Figueroa, who was the vice president of the company at that time, incorporated Monsanto Caribe LLC in 2004 . Two years later, he incorporated Monsanto AG Products LLC.
What is this scheme about? "It was done to be able to lease more land ... They are both Monsanto. The two entities belong to the parent company," admitted Carlos Morales's successor, Juan Santiago. "I'd have to check the data, but Monsanto AG has not yet been a lease contract." However, a source told this media outlet that the other corporation also rents land in Juana Díaz.
Puerto Rico's Constitution also prohibits any member of an agricultural corporation to have an interest in a corporation of that nature. "That scheme, to create another company under another name makes the situation more dramatic. Now we have to see if the government takes a blind eye to the situation because they believe these people are creating jobs," said Carlos Ramos.
The government itself is putting the best land on a silver platter for the seed producers. A source at the Center for Investigative Journalism said that the Land Authority offers is offering them some 2,518 cuerdas (2,445 acres), about 8% of all publicly owned land in the south of the island. All of them occupy a combined 6,000 acres of public and private land all around the island, according to Juan Carlos Justiniano, who represents the seed producers as chairman of the Association of Agricultural Biotechnology Industry of Puerto Rico.
More at the linkThe largest producer of transgenic seeds in the world is leasing some of the best... more
-
-
More than 250 people of different race and culture, including foreigner joins holding placards and banners demanding answers, representing Nepalese farmers in solidarity. Police stopped them from standing in front of the American embassy, which was there initial program.
"The ultimate goal of the protest is to put pressure on the Government of Nepal to
cancel their agreement with USAID and Monsanto Inc. and stop the proposed
hybrid maize pilot project from going ahead", on of the participant said.They also add "The introduction of Monsanto seed products into Nepal will have
disastrous consequences for the people of Nepal. Nepali farmers will
be forced into a relationship of dependancy with Monsanto Company.
Farmers will be worse off economically, soil and land will be
irreversibly damaged with the need for increased use of fertilizers.
thus decreasing chances of future livelihoods in farming and food
production. Nepal's international trade will also suffer.
http://www.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large_610x456_scaled/photos/939565.jpgMore than 250 people of different race and culture, including foreigner joins holding... more
-
-
NOTE: For more on the terrible human and environmental devastation wreaked by GM soy monocultures, see our Latin America videos: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videosb/26-gm-in-latin-america
---
---
SOYA WARS CLAIM CASUALTIES IN ARGENTINA
Nick Caistor, LAB
Latin America Bureau, 22 November 2011
http://www.lab.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1138:argentina-death-in-soya-war&catid=65:news&Itemid=39
*A peasant leader has been killed in Santiago del Estero, apparently by gunmen sent in by a local landowner.
The death in mid-November of Cristian Ferreyra, a member of a peasant farmer organization in the north of Argentina has focused attention on a struggle between small farmers and their families and large landowners anxious to clear their land to plant profitable soy-bean crops for export.
Ferreyra, aged 23, was shot and killed at home in San Antonio, in the province of Santiago del Estero. Another man was seriously wounded in the incident.
Two men alleged to have been hired by a local landowner have been arrested for the shooting, which came after repeated threats against the Santiago del Estero Peasant Movement (MOCASE). His death led to large protest marches in the capital of the province and in Buenos Aires.
'They come in a car with papers for us to sign,' says Gloria, a MOCASE member. 'They say they're the legal owners of the land. But we own it, we live on it, and we farm it.'
And, says Gloria, the pressure does not stop there. 'If we don't sign, the paramilitaries and the police come. They threaten to kill us.'
MOCASE has been campaigning for more than 20 years against the expropriation of land in the dry region of the north of Argentina, and for small-scale farming to be promoted rather than large scale properties usually planted with soya grown for export.
'Many families live in the wooded areas remaining in Santiago del Estero, and they help sustain peasant farming communities. So to authorise clearing of the woods implies, in practice, the eviction of the peasants. It is to be regretted that the provincial government encourages deforestation and the violation of the rights of rural inhabitants,' said Hernán Giardini, head of Greenpeace Argentina.
According to Greenpeace, some 70% of native forests in Argentina have been lost in recent years, as the frontier of land for intensive agriculture has rapidly advanced through the central and northern provinces.
Santiago del Estero, together with neighbouring Salta and Chaco, have lost the greatest amount of forests, which according to data from the Department of National Environmental and Sustainable Development were cleared at the rate of 280,000 hectares per year between 1998 and 2006.
In recent months, Santiago del Estero landowners have stepped up attempts to evict families from land they have farmed for years. The businessmen claim to have legal titles to the properties, and have often hired former policemen and other security staff to remove the peasant farmers.
More than a hundred of these producers have formed the group Santiago Justo y Productivo; according to Argentine press reports, the group claims the violence began with members of MOCASE, who they say destroyed machinery, tore down barbed wire, and attacked their workers.
MOCASE, which is supported by some 8,000 peasant families in the province, has organised resistance to these land grabs and the clearing of forests in the north of the province. MOCASE claims that the big landowners acquired the titles to the land during the last military dictatorship (1976-1983) but that peasant farmers have been farming them for subsistence in the years since then.
Ferreyra was one of those who guarded the land claimed by the peasant farmers, and had been a member of MOCASE for several years.
The provincial governor Gerardo Zamora, of the governing Kirchnerist tendency within Peronism, has set up a 'mesa de diálogos' to try to get both sides to sit down and discuss the problem. So far, without much success.
Argentina's soya production has grown enormously in the past twenty years, increasing by more than 200% since 1995. According to a report by the Worldwatch Institute, a US-based environmental NGO, more than 98% of that production is of GM soya.
MOCASE, however, insists on 'food sovereignty'. It says that priority should be given to making Argentina and its population self-sufficient in food rather than growing crops for export. The local farmers grow cotton and maize, as well as keeping herds of goats and cattle to produce meat, milk and cheeses.
In October 2011 MOCASE and other peasant organizations from nine provinces held the first national congress of the Movimiento Nacional Campesino Indigena (National Indigenous Peasant Movement).
Among other demands, the participants called for an end to land evictions, and stressed that food sustainability should be the government's priority. 'Food should not be treated as a commodity. The land is there to feed the people,' said Cristina Loaiza, a member of MOCASE who attended the Congress.
In a statement, the National Indigenous Peasant Movement (MNCI) declared: 'this violence comes from the agro-business model. The dead, the wounded, the evictions are all from the peasant communities. The State creates the conditions enabling the power of money to impose its logic of destruction and death.'
'These models of production are being questioned, and as Argentine men and women we need to understand that on the one side is life, on the other death. One side signifies work and dignity, the other profits for the few. One side means national food sovereignty, the other, domination by transnational companies.'
http://racismandnationalconsciousnessnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/foto8.jpgNOTE: For more on the terrible human and environmental devastation wreaked by GM soy... more
-
-
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16112805
The record suicide rate among farmers in India continues to rise and is threatening the country's stability and future development, according to campaigners.
They are blaming the government's policies for the agrarian crisis and are demanding it takes urgent action.
More than a quarter of a million farmers have killed themselves in the last 16 years in what is the largest recorded wave of suicides in history.
Kishore Tiwari, a campaigner with the Vidharbha Jan Andolan Samiti in Maharashtra state in central India, says cotton farmers have been particularly badly affected.
Many of them have only just moved to growing cash crops - like cotton - in the last few years.
He says the farmers have taken on large debts to buy hybrid seeds, which are often unsuited to the harsh and temperamental Indian climate.
"They are sold these modern seeds and modern chemicals and have to take on large debts to buy them.
"The problem is they need a lot of water which is in short supply and then when the crop is poor and they have to repay the money lenders, they despair and commit suicide."
Mr Tiwari says the suicides are a symptom of a wider crisis in the countryside.
India's has one of the fastest growing economies in the world but its roots are in the countryside and much of it is being left behind.
In a country with aspirations, moving away from a life of subsistence is attractive but it can also be deadly.
Vandana Moohorle is now bringing up her children alone after her husband killed himself by drinking pesticide.
Like many farmers, he had been persuaded to use genetically modified seeds by the possibility of a better harvest. What he wasn't told was that they needed more rain than the region provided.
His wife blames the government and the large agricultural companies for exploiting the rural poor who dream of a better life.
"He was always tense" she said. "He had borrowed a lot of money for pesticides and fertilizers and now I will have to pay back his debts. Debt is the reason for all the suicides around here and it's the people in charge who are responsible for it."
Across rural India there is now widespread despair. The fields are also filling up with widows.
Activists say it is the other side of India's economic success story.
Beyond the headlines of fast growth, most of the country is still poor and is being left behind by a corrupt political class who are preoccupied with their own greed.
They point to the alarming suicide numbers to prove their point.
More than 60% of India's population still depends on the countryside for survival but with unfettered globalisation and little support from the government, the rural classes are badly exposed.
In the face of rising inflation and with no safety net, the ultimate act of desperation is often their only answer to the new world they live in.
It is a sobering fact but on average one farmer now commits suicide in India every 30 minutes.
And campaigners say the problem will only get worse without direct intervention from the government in the form of subsidies and agricultural educational programmes.http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16112805
The record suicide rate among... more
-
-
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more
-
-
Permanent Peoples' Tribunal accuses biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF of promoting dangerous pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids
The world's major agrochemical companies, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, will face a public tribunal in early December accused of systematic human rights violations.
They are accused of violating more than 20 instruments of international human rights law through promoting reliance on the sale and use of dangerous and unsafe pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids.
The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (PPT), an international opinion tribunal created in 1979, will hear expert testimony from scientists, medical doctors and lawyers to prove the charges. Victims who have been injured by these products - from farmers, farmworkers, mothers and consumers from around the world - will also testify to the causes and nature of their injuries.
The cases will be heard over a four-day trial in Bangalore, India beginning December 3. While the Tribunal has no legal weight, and cannot force sanctions on companies, it aims to expose and raise awareness of large-scale human rights violations.
Pesticides Action Network (PAN) International, a global network comprised of 600 organisations in 90 countries, has spent years collecting information to bring about the indictments and is seeking justice for more than 25 specific cases - such as Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old from Paraguay who died days after breathing in a cloud of Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide sprayed by a crop duster. The trial will also hear evidence of the link between pesticide use and a decline in bees.
The corporations, known as the 'Big 6' control 74 per cent of the global pesticide market, as well as dominating the global seed market.
Bayer reject the allegations saying they are a 'wholesale distortion of the role of pesticides in our society.' Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow, after being contacted by the Ecologist, were unavailable for comment.
Pesticide poisonings
An estimated 355,000 people are believed to die each year from unintentional toxic chemical poisoning, according the World Health Organization, many of these from use or exposure to pesticides and other agrochemicals. Nick Mole from PAN UK said the trial would give a voice to the otherwise voiceless victims of pesticides.
‘The pesticide industry is massive and incredibly powerful. It is difficult to prove corporate manslaughter even when these products are killing hundreds of people a year,' he said. ‘We've spoken to people who have been abused and we are allowing them to give voice to their individual stories. We will be presenting the outcome of the Tribunal to the corporations and will be inviting their response,' he said.
It is hoped that the verdict, to be delivered on December 6, will lead to greater discussions at UN institutions on holding agrochemical corporations accountable for crimes relating to the impact of their products.
More at the linkPermanent Peoples' Tribunal accuses biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer,... more
-
-
WA'S non-genetically modified (GM) grain sector could vanish within the next 10 years due to contamination from GM crops, some farmers and conservation groups fear.
Nic Dunlop, environmental science and policy co-ordinator for the Conservation Council of WA, says feral GM canola plants have been found on road verges in the state's Esperance district some 20 kilometres away from the nearest GM crop.
The discovery shows that the requirement for a five-metre gap between GM and non-GM crops under the state government's limited commercial-size trials is ineffective.
The main purpose of the trials is to assess whether segregation is possible.
Dr Dunlop said GM-free canola could be a thing of the past in WA by the next decade, given that eight per cent of roadside plants recently sampled by the Conservation Council in the Esperance region were GM, only one year into the trial.
``It doesn't matter what you're doing on the farm - the trucks are spreading it around the countryside,'' Dr Dunlop told AAP.
Canola seed is very fine, so it falls through holes in trucks.
This is evident by the abundance of GM canola ``fugitives'' in areas where road vibration is high such as grates and bumps, Dr Dunlop said.
Janet Cotter, senior scientist at Greenpeace's University of Exeter-based science unit, said she suspected WA's feral canola population would be entirely GM within a few years.
Dr Cotter warned that the ``tolerance'' level for GM contamination in non-GM canola - 0.9 per cent - would rise incrementally with each year the trials were held.
However, WA Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman says he's confident the level of gene-flow between canola crops will remain acceptable.
Mr Redman said a five-metre gap between crops to keep GM contamination under 0.9 per cent was the benchmark standard in Australia and was ``more than sufficient''.
``I'm talking 0.01 per cent - nothing near 0.9 per cent,'' Mr Redman told AAP.
He rejected assertions by anti-GM groups that grain customers in Japan wanted GM-free products, which attracted a premium price.
The Japanese benchmark tolerance level for GM contamination was much higher at five per cent, he added.
Mr Redman said the non-GM market in Japan was small and WA would continue to be able to supply those customers.
On a recent trip to Japan, only one out of half a dozen importers of WA grain had raised concerns about the GM trials, Mr Redman said.
``They are saying `we are happy with segregation arrangements and we're happy that we are able, if we choose to meet our consumer needs and import non-GM canola from WA'.
``It is simply a furphy to say that what we've done in WA ... is a barrier to trade in the Japanese market.''
Janette Liddlelow, a non-GM grain farmer in the WA Wheatbelt town of Williams, argued that the sector was more significant than Mr Redman claimed.
Ms Liddlelow also said the minister had failed to deliver on a handful of conditions to the trial, including a public register of GM growers, mandatory random audits of GM farms and GM-free marketing zones.
There was angst in Williams, where non-GM farmers wondered whether their neighbours were growing GM crops.
More at the linkWA'S non-genetically modified (GM) grain sector could vanish within the next 10... more
-
-
A fight to maintain consumer choice and farm independence has landed Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen on Utne Reader's list of "25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World," published in the November/December edition of the magazine on newsstands now.
Organic seed potato farmer Jim Gerritsen heads a trade association that is suing chemical giant Monsanto. (photo: Charlotte Hedley ) Gerritsen, wife Megan, and their four children run the Wood Prairie Farm in Bridgewater, which produces and sells organic seed potatoes to kitchen gardeners and market farmers in all 50 states. Gerritsen is also president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, and it was that role that led to the Utne recognition.
The nonprofit organization created a stir in food and farming communities when, with legal backing from the Public Patent Foundation, it filed a lawsuit in March against the chemical and biotechnology giant Monsanto. OSGATA has since been joined in the lawsuit by 82 other seed businesses, trade organizations and family farmers, which together represent more than 270,000 people.
The lawsuit questions the validity of Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seeds, and seeks protection from patent-infringement lawsuits for the plaintiffs should their crops become contaminated with Monsanto's transgenic crops.
"The viewpoint of Monsanto is that (in such a situation) we have their technology, even though we don't want it and it has zero value in the organic market," Gerritsen said. "We think they should keep their pollution on their side of the fence."
Laws prohibit certified organic crops from containing genetically modified ingredients, and Monsanto's patents prohibit farmers from growing its seeds unless purchased from the company. Yet pollen doesn't heed certification or patent laws, and regularly drifts from transgenic crops to contaminate nearby non-genetically altered ones.
To add insult to injury, Monsanto has a reputation for suing or threatening to sue farmers for patent infringement in cases involving its genetically altered seeds, action reported in numerous media outlets as wide ranging as the Columbia Daily Tribune, CBS News and the New York Times.
Despite this well documented legal tactic, Monsanto spokesperson Thomas Helscher stated in an email: "Monsanto has never sued and has publicly committed to not sue farmers over the inadvertent presence of biotechnology traits in their fields. The company does not and will not pursue legal action against a farmer where patented seed or traits are found in that farmer's field as a result of unintentional means."
"Inadvertent" and "unintentional" are the key words here, but for farmers to prove that Monsanto's transgenic seeds are unwanted invaders in a court of law is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. A 2005 report from the Center for Food Safety, an organic-food and sustainable agriculture advocacy group, contends that Monsanto had at that time filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers. The report also contends that the corporation employed 75 people armed with a budget of $10 million devoted "solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
Pre-trial motions are still being filed in the lawsuit brought by OSGATA, with the most recent from Monsanto asking that the lawsuit be dismissed.
Helscher said the motion to dismiss results from the corporation's pledge to not sue farmers "where patented seed or traits are found in that farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means. Accordingly, there is no real controversy between parties and the OSGATA case should be dismissed."
Gerritsen views Monsanto's statements as part of a disinformation campaign designed to prolong the lawsuit.
"What they typically try to do is drag out lawsuits as long as they can, hoping the plaintiffs will run out of funding," Gerritsen said. He is confident OSGATA has the resources necessary to pursue this lawsuit for years, if necessary.
Unlike open pollinated crops such as corn and canola, which have suffered from widespread contamination by genetically modified seeds, potatoes remain relatively safe, Gerritsen said.
Monsanto developed multiple strains of transgenic potatoes in the 1990s under the name New Leaf. However, when major food companies such as McCain, which operates a french fry processing plant in Easton, and McDonald's rejected genetically-modified potatoes, Monsanto was forced to pull its transgenic strains off the market.
Gerritsen said the lawsuit will also seek to clarify what he sees as Monsanto's contradictory stance on its genetically modified seeds.
When arguing against labeling of transgenic food, Monsanto and other biotech companies claim that genetically modified seeds are substantially equivalent to traditional seeds. However, when seeking patents, the same companies claim the insertion of foreign genes creates unique seeds deserving of patent protection.
"Which is it?" Gerritsen asked. "It's one or other, but it can't be both. Is it the same? Or is it different?"
All genetically modified seeds are designed to do something different from the original seed. This can mean the modified seed will produce increased quantities of a particular substance inherent to the plant, manufacture chemicals foreign to the original plant, or withstand heavy applications of herbicides and pesticides manufactured by the same corporation seeking the seed patent.
snip
Citing the revolving door between corporations (including Monsanto) and the government agencies which purport to regulate them, Gerritsen said, "we basically have a dysfunctional government. The Occupy Wall Street concept is to try to give power back to the people."
In the same vein, the lawsuit against Monsanto seeks to restore the power of citizens and farmers to choose food free from genetically modified organisms.A fight to maintain consumer choice and farm independence has landed Maine farmer Jim... more
-
-
Phillip Geertson has spent the last 30 years farming and raising many diversified crops, and has been a partner in alfalfa breeding programs for 25 years. Alfalfa is a perennial plant, which makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination.
When Roundup Ready (hereafter "RR") alfalfa was first suggested I did not think that it would be developed and introduced because most alfalfa fields are never sprayed for weed control. And, if a chemical weed control was needed, there is a long list of off-patent low-cost herbicides that are effective if used properly.
Alfalfa hay is usually cut on a schedule of 24 to 30 days for each crop harvest. The entire plant above ground is removed along with any weeds. This frequent cutting and removal suppresses weed growth and will control, and sometimes even eliminate, persistent perennials and noxious weeds that Roundup will not control.
When alfalfa is properly fertilized and growing in appropriate soil conditions (correct Ph, well drained, etc.), alfalfa will outgrow and choke out most weeds. When alfalfa stands become weedy, non-thrifty, and otherwise poor performing it is usually because of poor fertility, insects, water logging, or winter damage. Weeds in an alfalfa forage field are a symptom of problems and simply spraying with Roundup to kill the weeds will not correct the underlying problem that is causing poor performance. A weedy alfalfa field should be plowed out, the soil conditions corrected, and then rotated to another crop that is not a host for alfalfa diseases, insects, or nematodes so that they die away. Afterwards, a new stand of alfalfa can be replanted.
Alfalfa is often planted with a companion crop of oats or other grasses in a spring seeding. The cover crop suppresses weeds and gives some protection to young alfalfa plants. An early summer cutting of the oats and new alfalfa plants produces valuable forage for horses, feeder cattle, and young dairy cattle. This practice, however, cannot be used with the RR technology because the Roundup will kill the oats or grass cover crop.
Forage fields of alfalfa are often planted with a companion perennial grass to produce forage that is an alfalfa-grass mix that is a superior feed for all classes of livestock. The grass component in the forage helps to balance the digestive process and gives a better balance of nutrients, so fewer supplements are required in high performance livestock. A grass mix forage is the best feed for horses and the grass in a dairy cow ration is very helpful in reducing laminitis in dairy cattle. Spraying an RR alfalfa field with Roundup will kill any companion grass.
The need for RR alfalfa is very limited; it only adds one more chemical to a long list of herbicides available.
From the standpoint of a conventional (non RR) alfalfa seed grower, the main problem with the introduction of RR alfalfa is the contamination of all alfalfa with the RR gene.
Alfalfa, a long-lived perennial, is cross pollinated by bees and other insects that fly long distances. Honey bees are known to fly ten miles, and wind gusts can pick up insects that have been pollinating alfalfa blossoms and gathering pollen and move them long distances.
Alfalfa sets and produces seed best if it is cross pollinated from another plant. If the pollen from an RR alfalfa plant fertilizes the flowers on a non-RR alfalfa plant, the seed on that non RR plant will contain the RR gene, and plants that grow from that seed will be roundup resistant. The RR gene will spread throughout the entire alfalfa population and would eventually make it impossible to raise conventional seed without some RR contamination and make it nearly impossible to breed and develop new varieties of alfalfa. This is not a good thing.
Conventional alfalfa contaminated with the RR gene will become a weed in the RR soybean, cotton, and sugar beet fields that cannot be removed.
Farmers that feel the RR technology is a valuable tool should and will avoid the introduction of any plant that is RR resistant . . . including alfalfa. The demand or acceptance of any conventional seed that has even a trace of RR contamination would be compromised, because a farmer who is growing other RR crops would not want his field contaminated with RR alfalfa.
Alfalfa is a native plant of Eurasia and grows as a feral plant throughout Europe. I have pictures of it growing along the Danube River in Austria, the Alps in Switzerland, and even in the median strip in front of the Nazi rally center in Nuremburg. It was introduced into North and South America, New Zealand, and Australia and other areas of the world where it now grows as a wild feral plant.
In a natural environment, the RR gene in alfalfa doesn't give it any survival advantage. In fact, early yield trials show that alfalfas with the RR gene are poor performers. In the environment created by human activity, however, we have given RR alfalfa a survival advantage. The worldwide use of glysosphate (the active ingredient in Roundup and other generic herbicides) will give alfalfa plants with the RR gene a survival advantage over conventional alfalfa. There is no wonder that the rest of the world does not want RR alfalfa seed and have prohibited the import of any alfalfa seed contaminated with even a trace of the RR gene.
The U.S. Alfalfa seed industry was the world's major producer of alfalfa seed. Historically, the U.S. alfalfa seed industry exported more than half of the alfalfa seed produced in the United States, but 2007 was the last time the USDA reported the size of the U.S. alfalfa seed exports. Why? Export data would be very useful in determining the amount of damage that was done to the U.S. alfalfa seed industry by the release of RR alfalfa into U.S. agriculture.
Alfalfa is the first important perennial plant to be genetically engineered and introduced into the environment that is cross pollinated by insects and that grows as a wild feral plant throughout the world. Putting a foreign gene that cannot be recalled into such an important crop without thoroughly analyzing its potential negative effects is, in my opinion, criminal. If Monsanto and/or other genetic engineering companies can get away with this introduction, then you can be sure that others will follow. Hundreds of other important plants will be subject to genetic mutation and if released into the environment could change the species forever. How does the Endangered Species Act come into play here?
Why was Monsanto given the right to introduce a gene into alfalfa plants without any published studies that prove beyond any doubt that it is safe, useful, and would not cause harm?
more at the linkPhillip Geertson has spent the last 30 years farming and raising many diversified... more
-
-
You may have heard that the USDA awarded a hefty research grant to AquaBounty, the “Frankenfish” creator. But there is more to the story….
What you may not have heard is that the award came just as the company was facing major financial troubles. This was a bailout. And there are more GMO threats in our future coming to the produce area of our supermarket aisles.
In September, the US Department of Agriculture awarded $494,000 to AquaBounty to study technologies that would make their genetically engineered Atlantic salmon sterile, so it couldn’t mate with non-GMO salmon. AquaBounty’s current sterilization technology hasn’t proved 100% effective. On its face, the USDA grant was intended to remove one of environmentalists’ biggest objections to the GE salmon, marketed under the name AquAdvantage, although inter-species breeding is not the only known problem. The GE fish may also be significantly more allergenic than natural salmon among other issues.
It’s bad enough that government is in bed with industry and cannot possibly be objective in the review and approval process. But it is also noteworthy that the infusion of nearly half a million taxpayer dollars came just as AquaBounty was facing grave financial troubles. The company’s interim report shows a loss of $2.8 million in the first half of 2011 alone, and stated it was “considering options for raising further working capital.” Just a few months later, the USDA obliged by giving the company a nice, fat grant.
USDA’s sister agency, FDA, is still in its review process for the GE salmon. In its appropriations bill, the House voted to stop funding of the fish, but the Senate has not included the same language in its own appropriations bill. It seems a foregone conclusion that FDA will approve the salmon if USDA is funding it.
Representatives Don Young (AK) and Peter DeFazio (OR) sent a letter to the USDA asking them to rescind the grant. “The USDA should not be in the business of picking winners and losers,” said Young. “Propping up a company who has already researched and developed their technologies should not be the business of the federal government. This company is not losing money due to a lack of research; they are losing money because Americans prefer wild salmon over Frankenfish.”
Consumers also face a threat of unidentified genetically engineered foods in their produce aisle. Monsanto plans to dominate the $3 billion global produce market by making their GE seeds the primary source of the nation’s vegetables and fruits. According to Monsanto’s chief executive, “This isn’t a hobby….We’re serious about it.” As the Los Angeles Times put it,
Grocery customers in California and elsewhere are chopping its onions that produce fewer tears, stir-frying its broccoli that decreases cholesterol, and biting into tiny orange tomatoes that last longer on the shelf. Soon, people will be thumping melons bred to be a single serving and shucking sweet corn genetically modified to enable farmers to spray the fields with the company’s weed killer, Roundup. To do this, it’s marrying conventional breeding methods with its vast technological resources to bring about changes in fruits and vegetables in months or years, rather than in decades.
Currently, vegetable seeds represent only 8% of Monsanto’s revenue. However, the company has already acquired four vegetable seed companies, 57 research centers, and hired many researchers and scientists.
Citizens nationwide are demanding that genetically engineered foods and foods containing genetically modified organisms be clearly labeled as such. Send your message to the USDA, FDA, and Congress, and tell them how concerned you are about Monsanto’s push into our nation’s produce. Take action today!
TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO USDA, FDA, AND CONGRESS
Click THIS LINK to go to the Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter.
http://www.anh-usa.org/another-fishy-bailout/You may have heard that the USDA awarded a hefty research grant to AquaBounty, the... more
-
