tagged w/ roundup ready
-
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
-
-
Scientist alleges a link to a disease that's killing soybeans.
Bouncing down a dirt road a couple of summers ago, past a gentle patchwork of barnyards and soybean fields in central Iowa, farmer Kent Friedrichsen strained over the steering wheel of his van and stared through the windshield in dismay.
His soybean fields, where he'd used seeds developed by Monsanto Co. and sprayed with its popular glyphosate weed killer Roundup Ready, were littered with yellowed leaves and dead plants. Four days earlier, the plants had been waist high and emerald green.
Nearby, in fields where he had planted seeds that weren't genetically engineered and didn't use glyphosates, the soybean plants were still healthy and lush.
Farmers call this "sudden death syndrome," a plant disease that has plagued the country's heartland and the nation's estimated $36.8-billion soybean industry. Scientists, who first spotted the disease in Arkansas in 1971 — more than 20 years before Monsanto introduced its Roundup Ready soybeans in the U.S. — blame damp weather and a fungus that rots the plant roots.
But, Friedrichsen said, "for years, I've wondered whether there wasn't something else."
Now, despite mountains of research to the contrary, one soil scientist is roiling the agricultural world with claims that there might be some truth to the farmer's unease.
Don M. Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University who has done research for Monsanto on chemical herbicides, alleges that he has found a link between genetically modified crops and crop diseases and infertility in livestock: an "unknown organism" he and other researchers claim to have discovered last summer in Midwestern fields like Friedrichsen's.
(more at link)Scientist alleges a link to a disease that's killing soybeans.
Bouncing down a... more
-
-
Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is the first perennial GMO. It can cross breed with wild alfalfa and provide a rogue GE gene pool, greatly increasing the probability that eventually all alfalfa will become contaminated. Alfalfa is also considered “insectary” due to the large number of insects it attracts, which will also accelerate the genetic contamination. If GMO alfalfa follows the same path as GMO soy and corn, then within 15 years we should expect to see 80-90% of the 21 million acres currently planted in alfalfa to be of a GE variety. This means a serious challenge to producing organic alfalfa, vital for organic dairy. It also means a substantially increased environmental human exposure to the herbicide RoundUp, a known endocrine disrupter.
Plant pathologist Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus of Purdue University, says the repercussions of introducing Roundup Ready technology to another crop, like alfalfa, could be disastrous. "If indications hold true, we're set up for the greatest disaster that this country or the world has ever seen, that will dwarf any major famine or drought that has ever been recorded," says Huber.
Should consumers choose to take their own action against this assault on human health, we wanted to point out some of the Land O’ Lakes brand names & licensees so that you can contact them and tell them what you think about their grand “little” experiment on mankind. Here are a few of the most well known names:
Land O’ Lakes
- http://www.landolakesinc.com/utility/contact/default.aspx
- http://www.facebook.com/LandOLakes
- (800) 328-9680
Purina Mills (Livestock feeds)
- http://cattle.purinamills.com/ContactUs/default.aspx
- (800) 227-8941
Dean Foods (Owner of Horizon Organics) packaging LOL products under license
- (214) 303-3400
- Dean Foods Consumer Response P.O. Box 961447 El Paso, TX 79996
- media@deanfoods.com
White Wave (Owned by Dean foods) packaging LOL products under license
- Land O’Lakes products: 800-878-9762
- jarod.ballentine@whitewave.com
- http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteWave-Foods/108451807072
Alpine Lace (Lowfat cheese products)
- http://www.alpinelace.com/contact/other.cfm
Of course you could also contact Forage Genetics directly at:
- Forage Genetics International, P.O. Box 339 Nampa, ID 83653-0339
- (800) 635-5701 info@foragegenetics.com
- Mark McCaslin, PhD, President - mccaslin@foragegenetics.com
If consumers let these food giants know that they will NOT buy their poisons, they WILL have no choice but to eventually listen
_____________
Time for a massive boycott.Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered... more
-
-
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.
This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.
Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)
Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.
Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease
More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.
(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)
The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.
1.The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
1.Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
1.The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
1.Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984
Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.
that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).
1.The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”
By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”
cont.Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot... more
-
-
A coalition of family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture are calling on the U.S. government to crack down on what they see as unfair consolidation of the nation's food system into the hands of a few multinationals --particularly Monsanto.A coalition of family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture... more
-
-
When Monsanto first petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture for deregulation of their Roundup Ready wheat, we feared consumer backlash based on the loss of European and Asian markets that corn growers experienced when genetically engineered (GE) corn varieties were commercialized in 1996. Our fears were substantiated through a Canadian Wheat Board buyer survey conducted in 2003, which determined that 83% of foreign buyers would not accept genetically engineered wheat and would seek alternate sources if either the United States or Canada commercialized a GE wheat variety. Building on that survey, Dr. Robert Wisner, a respected Iowa State agricultural economist, concluded that wheat producers would see a drop of as much as 35% in farmgate prices if GE wheat were commercialized.
Nothing has changed in the global marketplace for wheat, but a recent National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) survey would have the world believe that wheat growers themselves overwhelmingly support adoption of genetically engineered wheat.
But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Although NAWG has publicly claimed its survey finds that “more than three-quarters of the respondents approved a petition supporting the commercialization of biotechnology in wheat,” a close examination of that petition reveals that NAWG fundamentally misrepresents its own data, overstates the significance of the results, and exaggerates U.S. wheat growers’ demand for genetically engineered wheat - all to the detriment of its member farmers.
To begin with, NAWG states that only growers with more than 500 acres of wheat and more than 1,000 acres in total production were chosen to participate (to save on postage, NAWG claims); only 32% of them took part in the postcard solicitation survey. Every year I grow substantially more than 500 acres of wheat, and yet, I never received a survey. Why were particular farmers chosen and why were other growers left out?
The survey itself made virtually no effort to glean nuanced truth from its participants. Respondents were not asked whether or not they would grow GE wheat, only to endorse a petition that “encourages both public and private sectors to support the discovery and development of new technologies” for wheat. Biotechnology was merely one of many potential methods mentioned within the much broader context of NAWG’s stated desire to increase the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of the wheat growing industry, three things no sane wheat grower would disagree with.
Of the 21,262 survey cards sent out, 5,272 marked their checked the “I AGREE!’ biotech wheat/petition box. NAWG somehow interprets this as 76% of growers endorsing biotech wheat. NAWG apparently didn’t want to mention the 1, 635 wheat farmers who checked the I DISAGREE box and chose to ignore the 14,355 producers who likely tossed it aside with the rest of the junk mail.
end of excerpt.
NO TO GMOS! STAY OUT OF OUR FIELDS!
Sick of your GM soy
Sick of your BT corn
Sick of your BT cotton
Leaving our environment worn
Transgenic contamination and pesticides
Polluting all we see
Your bacteria infested test tube 'food'
Stealing our biodiversity
Your 'food' is not the future
You cannot feed the poor
You only bring destruction
To the developing world's door
You dare to patent seeds
That leave us in debt and strife
You dare to think you have the right
To patent our very life!
We will take back our nature
We will take back our land
We will grow and eat the pure food
That we will til by hand
We will not give up now
Until our mission is complete
We will not eat your BT corn and soy
And WE WILL NOT EAT YOUR WHEAT!
Thought I would try a different approach to get my opinion across. This is simply getting out of hand.When Monsanto first petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture for deregulation of... more
-
-
'Controlling Our Food'
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television - a documentary that Americans won’t ever see. The gigantic bio-tech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years'Controlling Our Food'
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French... more
-
-
A lawsuit filed last year to stop sales of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically modified sugar beet seed will be argued in a US District Court of Northern California on April 3. One man’s livelihood may hang in the balance.A lawsuit filed last year to stop sales of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically... more
-
-
For full screen "click" link.
There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America -- a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat.
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/For full screen "click" link.
There is a revolution happening in the farm... more
-
-
While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor within this problematic milieu, recent research at Penn State has revealed that pesticide levels in hives are much higher than researchers predicted. Beekeepers use some pesticides as an inexpensive way to combat varroa mites in their colonies. While the researchers were able to reduce the pesticide levels in beeswax foundation -- the wax that beekeepers use to create hive structures -- through irradiation, this only addresses part of the problem. The extraordinarily high levels of pesticides discovered in the bees, their honey, and their pollen, showed that pesticide exposure outside of the hives is contributing to the problem.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates agricultural pesticide use, but this regulation does not account for the interaction of these chemicals that inevitably takes place through the bees' pollination processes. Some of these combinations of pesticides have been found to have a synergistic effect hundreds of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually, says James L. Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State. Bees' exposure to these toxic chemical combinations both outside of, and within, the home -- er, hive -- may cause behavioral changes. These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.
Last year, the American Beekeepers' Federation, in a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, encouraged Congress to pass the 2007 Farm Bill. The letter highlighted environmental regulation and enforcement as one of the beekeeping industry's priority issues, stating "the central role of bees in the environment and farm economy should be emphasized in environmental regulation and enforcement, including in the review and approval of new farm chemicals and treatments.... In the Farm Bill or otherwise, Congress should, among other things, mandate that sub-lethal effects on honey bees be considered in the regulatory process for new agricultural treatments."
Whether Congress follows through or not, organic farming and agricultural practices provide an approach to addressing the problem of pesticide toxicity in bees. The Institute of Science in Society stated in a recent press release that "organic farming practices that retain more natural habitats and avoid the use of chemical pesticides should provide environments that serve as honeybee sanctuaries from the ravages of CCD. There are scientific studies showing that agricultural landscapes with organic crops are far superior environments for both honey- and bumblebees. It would be prudent to create organic bee sanctuaries as widely and as soon as possible... There is every reason to eliminate the use of all pesticides that act synergistically with parasitic fungi, and all Bt crops should be banned for the same reason. Obviously, these problems will disappear with the widespread adoption of organic, non-GM farming."
******************
Could it be that Monsanto's Round Up pesticide or some other pesticide made by Bayer is contributing to colony collapse disorder? The NRDC recently filed suit against the EPA to disclose information they have regarding CCD and pesticides as they refused to answer questions about it. I think this research is instrumental in then shedding some light on whether CCD is related to the pesticides bees come in contact with on GM crops when trying to pollenate them, or some other toxic source.While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor within... more
-
-
The most important documentary you will see this year.
How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage. The Gazette says the movie "will freeze the blood in your veins." The Hour says it's a "horrifying enough picture" to warrant "fury." But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time. The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.
Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet-with Monsanto in charge of determining if they're safe.
Deception, Deception, Deception
The company's history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can't be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto's PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto's toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, "How long you think I got?"
Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."
snip
Replacing Nature: "Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don't Own" Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world." The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto's record, the results can only be catastrophic. This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto's plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history.
The most important documentary you will see this year.
How much outrage can a... more
-
-
Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food shortages, but high prices of oil and feed and political corruption propagated by the very governments and agencies like the World Bank that are now pushing GM foods that are untested. Notice a pattern here?
From the article:
Arguments about genetic modification, often wrongly characterised as science versus irrational nature-worshippers, have lost none of their passion. On one side are those who yearn for simple, high-tech solutions to complex problems. Against GM, there are ecological realities and scientific evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that farming took a wrong turn after the last war, with widespread use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers and sprays.
In Britain, we lost up to 95 per cent of our ancient woodlands, flower meadows, hedges and wildlife and saw massive losses of farms and farm workers' jobs. Farming became more oil-dependent. Our food lost vitamins, taste and diversity and our diet became unhealthy.
As the environmental and human cost of industrial farming became harder to deny, along came a new miracle cure ; genetic engineering. Twenty years ago, GM promised unbelievable wonders ; fruit that would never freeze, crops needing no fertiliser or sprays and food with vitamins and medicines engineered in. All food would soon be GM. Geneticists would engineer anything we wanted, taking a gene from a fish here, a pig there, adding a bacteria gene and maybe a bit of a virus.
The greatest coup by the GM companies, and their greatest scientific fraud, was to ensure no GM food had to be tested for safety. In America, they established the concept of "substantial equivalence" which means that if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is it no safety testing is needed before people eat it. GM maize could have added virus and antibiotic resistance genes, and a gene that makes it express an insecticide in every leaf, stem and root but to the US government it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat.
GM crops face mounting scientific evidence of uncertainty, risk and danger. But now, because of rising food prices, the GM industry's claim that GM is needed to feed the world is suddenly newsworthy again. However, a key reason for soaring food prices higher oil costs leading to higher fertiliser prices also presents a massive threat to GM crops. All current and planned GM crops depend on artificial, oil-based fertiliser to grow, and all need to be treated with pesticides to survive.
In 2006, the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture observed that "currently available GM crops do not increase yield potential" a point already made by a 2004 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report which acknowledged that "GM crops can have reduced yields". The recently published UN IAASTD report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, about the future of global food production under the challenges of climate change and population pressure, concluded that GM crops do not have much to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM foods: 'un'natural selection.
Avarice and greed in the name of exploiting a food crisis brought on not by food... more
-
-
Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin.
The American biotechnology and herbicide-producing giant wouldn't co-operate with Robin in her three years researching her highly critical documentary The World According to Monsanto and her accompanying, French-language bestseller (with an English translation on the way).
Now that her film is being shown in more and more countries, and advocacy groups are featuring clips of the documentary on their websites, Monsanto still hasn't called Robin.
To many viewers, the company's "no comment" may appear to be damning in itself, given the litany of accusations made against Monsanto by farmers, scientists, watchdog groups, health and agriculture advocates.
Googling for seeds of truth
The documentary shows farmers alleging that Monsanto - a leader in developing genetically modified seed and herbicides - has pitted farmer against farmer, encouraging them to rat on anyone suspected of not buying new Monsanto seed each year. It shows agricultural experts alleging genetically modified corn has invaded indigenous Mexican corn, with monstrous varieties being found. And advocates in India alleging that cotton farmers sometimes commit suicide owing to their dependence on genetically modified crops and the risk of low harvests. The list of accusations goes on.
A spokeswoman from Monsanto Canada, however, did respond to calls for this article. "Any of the allegations that have been made in the movie have been responded to publicly on our website," spokeswoman Trish Jordan said. A segment on the company's website labelled For the Record, she explained, "basically responds to some of the common allegations that are dredged up by activists. And I think that would probably give you our position on most, if not everything, in her documentary."
The film does refer to the website, and the explanations used by Monsanto in response to various criticisms.
Still, Robin said she was astonished by what she found when making the film. "Yes, I was very surprised. It's very difficult to understand how they manage - what they called in the U.S. the revolving door," she said. By this, she means the way in which government officials and elected leaders have often worked for corporations such as Monsanto, only to later pass regulations while in office favouring their former employers.
It was also difficult to get people to talk. "It's very difficult," Robin said, whether officials within regulatory agencies, scientists or other journalists. She said that one regulatory insider told her they didn't want to have any problems with the company, since it's so powerful.
The World According to Monsanto is as disturbing as any Hollywood thriller. Robin's next documentaries will likely be just as heavy, with a film on the U.S. military's use of what many see as torture during interrogations and a documentary on environmental causes of cancer.
So what drives Robin to investigate such dire topics?
"I have three daughters at home," she said, "and I think when I'm doing this kind of documentary, it's for my daughters. ... With what's going on with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and what it means, in 20 years, if we don't react, it's very worrisome."
Aug.1,2008Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist... more
-
-
Perhaps any other 77-year-old would simply retire and step back from a battle with a multi-million dollar agricultural company. Not Percy Schmeiser.
A keynote speaker at Canada's largest outdoor organics festival on July 5 and 6, Schmeiser cautioned listeners about the lure and hazards of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The Saskatchewan farmer spoke at the Organic Islands Festival in Victoria before an audience well aware of his efforts and tribulations.
Schmeiser's regionally adapted canola, which he had researched for 50 years, became contaminated with airborne pollen from fields containing Roundup Ready, one of Monsanto's product lines.
He took Monsanto all the way to Canada's Supreme Court after the agro-chemical company sued him for using its product without purchasing it. Schmeiser claimed he had never used the product. The Supreme Court found in Monsanto's favor because their Roundup Ready canola was protected by a patent.
However, in an out-of-court settlement finalized in March, Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields, and the court ruled that Monsanto can be sued again if contamination on his fields recurs.
Throughout the several court cases, Schmeiser stood firm in his belief that once GE organisms are released into the environment, there will be "no calling back" the genie.
Schmeiser says that selection and husbandry have been a cornerstone of agriculture since the first organized harvests. In the last 100 years, the use of science to modify the characteristics of a plant or animal has been instrumental in increased tonnage per hectare.
While the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s resulted in improved harvest levels, these results often came at the cost of substantial inputs of pesticides, herbicides, and oil-based technology.
In many countries, this proved a disastrous combination, impoverishing the soils, farmers, and whole countries, says Schmeiser.
Genetically modified crops need a significant increase in proprietary chemicals. Super-chemical Roundup, for example, is reported to be four times stronger today because of new active ingredients, he claims.
He adds that Agent Orange, known from the Vietnam War, is emerging as a component in new GE foods offered by some agro-chemical companies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really. Do you want the same companies that made Agent Orange supplying your food?
Perhaps any other 77-year-old would simply retire and step back from a battle with a... more
-
-
An authoritative new study demonstrates that genetically modified crops come very, very short of the yields their makers promised and even guaranteed that they would. This exposes genetic engineering for its imprecisions.
Hopefully, this spells the beginning of the end (may it come hastily) for Monsanto and parallel corporations. An authoritative new study demonstrates that genetically modified crops come very,... more
-
-
BRUSSELS-- A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month, to ban the planting of a genetically modified corn strain, sets up a bitter war within the European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the issue.
BRUSSELS-- A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month, to... more
-
