tagged w/ rbST
-
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
-
-
31st December 2010
By Chris Hinyub
Intependent Voter Network | December 24, 2010
" Control The Food Supply, and you control the people."
Acting on information from a “key intelligence source,” CBS News claimed that terrorists are trying to poison our food supply on Monday. This may come as a shock, but some researchers have already identified several thriving “food-terror cells” who’ve been operating from within our borders for years. One is based in St. Louis, Missouri under the cover of a trans-national chemical manufacturer turned bio tech firm. It turns out that Monsanto has been poisoning Americans with the FDA’s approval for at least 12 years.
Mary Nash Stoddard of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network informs us:
“In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for a monster molecule, ‘based on the aspartame formula,’ with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl [listed on EPA's most hazardous chemical list]. Neotame is touted as being 13,000 times sweeter than sugar.
On July 5 2002, Monsanto’s Neotame molecule was approved by the US FDA over formally registered objections of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and others. Long term effects on humans are unknown. Read the full release at the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network. The food labeling requirements for aspartame have now been dropped for Neotame, and no one is clear why this was allowed to happen. Neotame has been ruled acceptable, without being included on the list of ingredients, for USDA Certified Organic food items and Certified Kosher products with the official letter k inside the circle on labels.
Ever ready to give the public what it craves – guilt-free, low calorie treats that taste as good as sugar, is the multi-billion dollar sweetener industry. The sugar industry pales by comparison in the profit-generating arena. Fake sugars, in the form of Aspartame and now the Aspartame super clone, Neotame, give ‘foodies’ and fitness fanatics false hope and the empty promise that all can ‘have our cake and eat it, too.’ “Not necessarily so.” Don’t think that by avoiding sweet things you won’t get a 3-dimethylbutyl dose. Neotame is quickly displacing molasses as a feed amendment at industrial cattle lots, helping to make those cows’ GMO grain-based diet “more palatable.”
With an even more questing spirit than the alleged al Qaeda plotters, who supposedly planned to put cyanide in our restaurant salad buffets, Monsanto has already managed to put their genetically modified crops into 70 percent of the processed food products on grocery store shelves. The FDA does not require labeling of these disease-causing ingredients. Monsanto’s continued expansion and its infiltration of rural America has been funded by a massive subsidy program authorized by the USDA. Many have written about the revolving door leadership policy between federal food agencies and the corporate behemoth, but few seem to grasp the grave dangers such a good-ol’-boy network entails. The fact is, Monsanto has not produced a “food” product that independent, non-corporate sponsored studies have found to be safe for prolonged human consumption.
Case and point: recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (aka rBGH or rBST). This refers to a genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to boost their milk production. Together with being more plentiful (and more puss-filled), milk from rBGH treated cows (despite what the milk-jug label wants you to believe) is detrimental to human health. Sold to factory dairy farmers under the brand name Posilac, rBGH has successfully evaded crucial labeling laws in the U.S. and abroad since it was approved by the FDA in 1994. Posilac was perhaps the most prevalent Weapon of Mass Disease in Monsanto’s well-stocked arsenal until the first wave of unbiased scientific scrutiny forced them to pawn their cancer-causing product off on pharmaceutical giant Eli Lily.
I think it’s about time for Americans to be a little more proactive in fighting food-terrorism. Though most of use don’t have the luxury of producing our own food, we can at least use our powers as consumers to opt-out of supporting terrorist organizations. Just say no to Monsanto products and to a genetically altered, chemically perverted food supply. Let’s stop funding organizations that wreak economic, ecological and biological terror on the civilized world.31st December 2010
By Chris Hinyub
Intependent Voter Network | December 24, 2010... more
-
-
In a victory for local dairy farmers and consumers, Gov. Sebelius vetoes controversial bill that would have limited rbGH labeling on dairy products in the state.
To support Kansas dairy farmers and consumers, Governor Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed legislation concerning the labels on milk products. The bill, HB 2121, faced massive opposition from dairy, consumer, health, animal welfare and environmental organizations across the country; nearly 30 of which wrote a letter to Governor Sebelius, President Obama’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, urging her to veto HR 2121. The bill passed by the Kansas State Legislature would have required an additional disclaimer on labels for dairy products produced from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), a genetically engineered, artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk.
The Governor’s office sent out a press release late this afternoon, explaining why she vetoed the bill:
“…the Bill before me…provides for changes in dairy labeling that could make it more difficult to provide consumers with clear information. The milk labeling provisions negatively impact a dairy producer’s ability to inform consumers that milk is from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST).”
“Supporters of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information. Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation. Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto HB 2121.”
“I applaud Governor Sebelius’ veto of HB 2121, which would have made it more difficult for dairy farmers who don’t use recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) to label their milk as such. Governor Sebelius clearly recognized that the bill’s provisions on dairy labeling would have made it harder for consumers to get the information they want about the dairy products they consume and would have hindered dairy farmer’s ability to tell consumers that their milk is from cows not treated with rbGH,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
Due to growing consumer demand, companies are removing rbGH from their dairy products across the country. In addition, over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged to serve rbGH-free products and the past president of the American Medical Association said in a letter to all AMA members that hospitals should serve only milk produced without rbGH. A recent report compiled by the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility found that more than half of the 100 largest dairy processors in the country have gone completely or partially rBGH-free due to consumer demand.
“Governor Sebelius made the right decision for dairy producers, businesses, and citizens today,” said Heather Whitehead, True Food Network Director at the Center for Food Safety. “Consumers want more information about the foods we purchase and feed to our families; not less. HR 2121 would have taken Kansas in the wrong direction, and we applaud Governor Sebelius for protecting Kansas farmers and consumers.”
_________________
Finally, some good news and a victory. Thank you, Governor Sebelius for voting for consumers, health, the environment, animals, and consumer disclosure. This proves that public demand and pressure CAN bring change. I am proud to say I am one of 8000 people who e-mailed Governor Sebelius from this organzation asking her to veto this bill, and this is only the beginning.In a victory for local dairy farmers and consumers, Gov. Sebelius vetoes controversial... more
-
-
www.YourMilkOnDrugs.com Dairy products from cows treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) may sharply increase cancer risk and other diseases, especially in children. Already banned in most industrialized nations, it was approved in the US on the backs of fired whistleblowers, manipulated research, and a corporate takeover at the FDA. This must-see film includes footage prepared for a Fox TV station—canceled after a letter from Monsanto's attorney threatened "dire consequences."www.YourMilkOnDrugs.com Dairy products from cows treated with Monsanto's... more
-
-
Starting Feb. 1 consumers will have less information about their Milk. At issue is labeling for rbST, a hormone given to cows to increase milk production up to 100%. Monsanto, the major producer of rbST is losing customers when labeling is present. Starbucks recently stopped using rbST milk. Pennsylvania consumers will no longer have a choice, though. Advocates for the change argue that labels unfairly suggest rbST is dangerous. Scientists do not agree on the safety of rbST. Starting Feb. 1 consumers will have less information about their Milk. At issue is... more
-
