tagged w/ USDA
-
You’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to superweeds so formidable and fast-spreading that they break farm machinery and render millions of acres of farmland useless. These superweeds have evolved as a direct consequence of Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready pesticide-seed package. Now superbugs are emerging, resistant to Monsanto’s transgenic insecticidal crops. Ecologists predicted this ecological disaster 15 years ago.
The big question is, can we possibly learn from this ecological and agronomic disaster? The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Monsanto’s rival, Dow Chemical, apparently cannot.
From bad to worse
Instead of abandoning this losing strategy, Dow is trying to get us running faster on the same old broken pesticide treadmill. Dow and USDA are hoping to quietly approve a new genetically engineered corn seed that basically swaps RoundUp (glyphosate) out and an even worse weedkiller (2,4-D) in. Bad idea.
As with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready lines, the herbicide with which these seeds are engineered to be used (2,4-D) will surge in use. Dow aims to get 2,4-D-resistant corn to market this year, soy next year and cotton in 2015. These three crops dominate U.S. agriculture, blanketing over 100 million acres of mono-cropped countryside and driving the pesticide market. Only this time, the fallout will be even worse. Here’s why:
2,4-D is a more toxic herbicide, both to humans and to plants. 2,4-D is a reproductive toxicant (associated with lower sperm counts) and its formulations have been linked to cancer (in particular non-Hodgkins lymphoma), disruption of the immune and endocrine (hormone) systems and birth defects. EPA has also expressed a “concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to 2,4-D.”
2,4-D does and will drift off of target crops – both through spray drift and volatilization. The latter enables chemicals to travel with moving air masses for miles. Neither applicator nor innocent bystander can prevent such movement. The spread of 2,4-D across our lands will damage non-target crops and vegetation, devastate adjacent ecosystems and poses a very real threat to rural economies and farmers growing non-2,4-D-resistant crops. Conventional farmers growing their product miles away will suffer severe crop losses, while organic farmers will lose both crops and certification, resulting in business failures, job losses and an economic unraveling of already-stressed rural communities.
2,4-D-resistant “superweeds” will arise and spread just as RoundUp-resistant “superweeds” have taken over farms and countryside in the Midwest and Southeast. Where will this leave struggling farmers? What even more deadly pesticide will the biotech companies resort to next?
Corn is wind-pollinated which means that genetic material from 2,4-D corn will contaminate non-GE corn. You cannot put a GE genie back in the bottle.
What next?
Will Dow provide compensation to farmers, their children and rural communities for the harms likely to occur should the company secure approval of its 2, 4-D resistant corn? I rather doubt it. Dow has still refused to assume responsibility for the deaths and devastation arising from the pesticide explosion in Bhopal, India in 1984, so why would the company show any integrity now?
It will take an active, engaged public to get USDA back on track and in the business of serving the public interest.
What about USDA? Can we expect our public agency to carefully scrutinize the likely fallout of approving 2,4-D resistant corn? One problem is that USDA does not really want to know what the public thinks.
More at the linkYou’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to... more
-
-
By Brad Johnson
The Department of Agriculture’s plant hardiness maps are finally reflecting a fact that gardeners have already realized — the United States is changing dramatically with global warming pollution. The USDA released a new plant hardiness zone map to replace the 1990 map, reflecting twenty years of rapid global warming:
“The 1990 map was based on temperatures from 1974 to 1986, the new map from 1976 to 2005. The nation’s average temperature from 1976 to 2005 was two-thirds of a degree higher than it was during the old time period, according to the National Climatic Data Center.”
The new map is generally one half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States. Cities as varied as Boston, Honolulu, St. Louis, Des Moines, Iowa, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Fairbanks, Alaska, are in newer, warmer zones. Almost all of Ohio, Nebraska and Texas are in warmer zones.
The Washington Post quoted several experts who noted the new map, whose changes in hardiness zones are based on rising minimum temperatures across the nation, isn’t news to gardeners.
Boston University biology professor Richard Primack: “People who grow plants are well aware of the fact that temperatures have gotten more mild throughout the year, particularly in the wintertime.”
George Ball, chairman and CEO of the seed company W. Atlee Burpee: “Climate change, which has been in the air for a long time, is not big news to gardeners.”
Stanford University biology professor Terry Root: “It is great that the federal government is catching up with what the plants themselves have known for years now: The globe is warming and it is greatly influencing plants (and animals).”
Vaughn Speer, an 87-year-old master gardener in Ames, Iowa, said he has seen redbud trees, appear ten miles north of their traditional limit in recent years. Our nation’s forests are dying with the changes. Lodgepole pines, aspens, walnut trees, and other dominant species adapted to a climate without greenhouse pollution are already suffering in our hotter planet.
In coming decades, the rate of global warming will increase significantly, a result of the rapid rise in fossil fuel pollution, making it ever more difficult for plants to adapt, and destabilizing all of our nation’s ecosystems.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/01/25/411937/figs-in-boston-new-plant-hardiness-zones-reflect-dramatic-global-warming/By Brad Johnson
The Department of Agriculture’s plant hardiness maps are... more
-
-
Did a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of genetically modified foods? According to Ari Levaux at the Atlantic, the answer is a resounding yes.
The study in question, performed by researchers at China’s Nanjing University and published in the journal Cell Research, found that a form of genetic material — called microRNA — from conventional rice survived the human digestive process and proceeded to affect cholesterol function in humans.
Levaux argues that this new study “reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health” which should cause us to completely revisit the question of GM crops’ safety. And he’s right to be alarmed, just a little off on the reasoning.
Let’s take a closer look at how this study applies to current GM technology, shall we?
I would argue that several studies have already suggested that existing GM foods might present a health risk. For example, this study in The International Journal of Biological Sciences found evidence that Monsanto’s Bt corn causes organ damage in lab animals. Then there’s this one which showed that GM soybeans can alter mice on the cellular level — an indication that genetically modified material survives digestion and is active in animals that consume it.
Of course, advocates of genetically modified foods will observe that the phenomenon of genetic transfer through consumption applies to all plants and that GM foods are therefore “substantially equivalent” to non-GM foods. As Levaux explains at length, this concept of substantial equivalence has been used by the biotech industry as well as our government to push GM foods through safety testing with minimal scrutiny. What’s Monsanto’s defense of all this? On its website, the company claims:
There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods … DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard … So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks.
So the fact that the Chinese team found active genetic material going from plants to humans isn’t really new and doesn’t really change what we know about how existing genetically engineered crops might affect us.
But what is new — and what Levaux missed — is that the Chinese study happens to involve exactly the kind of genetic matrieral — microRNA — that biotech companies hope to use in their next generation of genetically modified foods.
Today’s GMOs are almost entirely based on adding new genes to crops like corn, soy, and cotton in order to alter the way the plants function. And even then new functions are mostly limited to making plants either able to tolerate herbicides or to produce their own. But if biotechnology companies are successful in their efforts, there may soon be genetically modified foods that use microRNA — simply put, snippets of RNA whose potency were only discovered around a decade ago — to target, and block the function of specific genes in pests.
Thus the news that plant microRNA can survive digestion and affect human systems brings into question the wisdom of pursuing this kind of technology in food.
As explained to me by Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists and expert in genetically modified foods, microRNA technology is an area that biotech companies are actively pursuing. Monsanto itself has a whole web page devoted to the technology, which they call RNA interference.
Gurian-Sherman notes that the Chinese study — though requiring confirmation and follow-up research — raises “an initial red flag.” It calls into question “any general statement that [microRNA] technology would be inherently safe,” he adds.
He observes that humans and insects share a surprising amount of DNA material — evolution favors reusing and recycling genes even among creatures as different as insects and humans. If this research bears out, then it’s entirely possible that microRNA meant to target a specific insect gene will also have an effect — possibly unpredictable — in humans. This is especially true because, for technology like this to work as a pesticide, the microRNA must be present in high levels in the plant, which makes it even more likely the genetic material will make it all the way into the human gut.
snip
UPDATE: Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union wrote to me after this post was published with an important point about the significance of the Chinese study. While he agreed that the main implications relate to the possible risk from microRNA-based GM foods, he also felt that this study did make a new and somewhat startling finding regarding how plant genetic material affects humans. As he put it, the study “showed that the miRNA not only survived digestion [in humans] but also was taken up and moved to other parts of the body where a specific impact was noted. The studies you cited — from Seralini’s lab and Malatesta’s lab — only show that GE crops can have an adverse effect on animals.”
more at the linkDid a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of... more
-
-
Over the holidays, the USDA approved a strain of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn that can now be planted freely in the environment and distributed throughout the U.S. food supply, with no oversight or efforts to track its safety.
Monsanto says the strain is drought-tolerant, but the USDA itself has actually found otherwise.
Instead, the agency ignored its own results as well as concerns from the public, which has little trust in the safety of the crop. Nearly 45,000 public comments were written in opposition to the particular corn variety and only 23 comments were written in favor, according to the Cornucopia Institute.
Approving an Agent Orange Chemical
Other GMO crops are also on the way. Cornucopia reports that the USDA has opened a public comment period for a soybean variety from Monsanto containing increased levels of an omega-3 fatty acid—which you hear a lot about as being healthy, but it doesn't not naturally occur in soybeans.
The agency is also holding a public comment period for a GMO corn from Dow engineered to better resist the poisonous herbicide 2,4-D.
Cornucopia explains more:
While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.
2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Mark Kastel from Cornucopia said, "the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical,” comparing it to Monsanto's GMO corn that has become resistant to its Roundup herbicide—and which has led to the evolution of superweeds that grow up to three inches per day.
Bad News for Public Health and Safety
The science of the effects of this chemcial is frightening:
Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.
Birth defects were also found to be more likely in babies conceived in the spring—when application of herbicides is at its highest.
There's also a touch of irony that should not be overlooked, again from Cornucopia:
In its petition, Dow AgroSciences states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops.
When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D. Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.Over the holidays, the USDA approved a strain of Monsanto's genetically... more
-
-
Willie Nelson spells out what's going on with those who control our food, they're bigger than the "too big to fail" banks and we're eating this $tuff!Willie Nelson spells out what's going on with those who control our food,... more
-
-
NBC L.A. ...
.
Wildlife WayStation in Dire Financial State
"We are at the end of our rope," said Martine Colette, the sanctuary's founder and director
By Ashley Gordon
| Friday, Dec 2, 2011 | Updated 3:29 PM PST
.
Wildlife Waystation in Dire Financial State
Photo: Wildlife Waystation resident Bolero plays with a ball.
.
Taking care of wild animals is no easy task. Couple the labor and maintenance involved with a troubled economy and the result is an animal sanctuary on the brink of closure.
Tucked within the Angeles National Forest is the Wildlife WayStation, an animal sanctuary that some 400 wild and exotic animals, birds and reptiles call home. Since it opened its doors in 1976, it has relied solely on corporate and foundation grants, private donations, animal sponsorships and bequests – all of which have dwindled under the current economic climate.
“We are at the end of our rope,” said Martine Colette, the sanctuary’s founder and director. “We cannot stretch a dollar anymore and we are out of dollars.”
Colette said she is experiencing the most significant drop in fundraising activity in her 45 years of animal welfare and rescue work, making it increasingly difficult to meet the $150,000 needed monthly to maintain the WayStation. She even issued a plea for public help.
The nonprofit has significantly cut back on permanent support staff, instead, relying more heavily on volunteers to help with the day-to-day operation.
In addition, Los Angeles County requires such a facility to obtain a conditional use permit in order to open to the public.
“When we have a hearing, we contact the associated [governmental] agencies and they actually formulate conditions that would be appropriate for that facility,” said John Gutwein, deputy director of the Land Use Regulation Division of the county’s department of Regional Planning.
While the WayStation remains a licensed animal sanctuary, the high costs associated with county-required repairs has kept its doors shut to the public for the last seven years.
Because of this, the organization finds itself in a Catch-22: It is in need of money to meet county requirements before the public is allowed on the premises; however, it is lacking the money that would be raised through public visitation to make repairs.
Gutwein said he visited the organization six or seven years ago and at the time thought the level of animal restraint was not suitable for outside visitors. He also expressed concern involving an evacuation plan for the animals if a fire were to start in the high-brush area.
Still, he said the WayStation’s issues are completely due to a lack of resources.
“If [Colette] did have the resources, I have no doubt she could make those improvements so perhaps parts of the facility could be open to the public," he said.
Colette said the WayStation is mostly funded by the Average Joe, the people the economy has hurt the most. For this reason, she believes the best case scenario for long-term sustainability of the organization would be a partnership with a company that could get behind its brand.
“I know that the public will be empathetic and there will be a certain amount of dollars sent to the station,” Colette said. “But the real solutions have to come from any of the options I’ve outlined.”
The worst case scenario would be the closure of the 160-acre property and would leave the government with the difficult task of relocating hundreds of troubled animals.
“We have an opportunity to make a difference in these animals’ lives now. Once we are unable to care for them, governmental agencies step in,” Colette said. “That is a very scary concept.”
Marcia Mayeda, director of the county’s Department of Animal Care & Control, said that if her department had to intervene it would work with the United States Department of Agriculture to find a solution.
“It is not easy. We’ve taken over 300 dogs over time from people who could no longer care for them,” Mayeda said. “Although tigers are way different, we do have a lot of resources to help find new homes from them.”
.NBC L.A. ...
.
Wildlife WayStation in Dire Financial State
"We are at... 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
-
-
HORSE MEAT IS COMING TO YOUR MENUE
Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for human consumption after Congress quietly lifted a 5-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections, and activists say slaughterhouses could be up and running in as little as a month, and..
Full story at the link:
http://www.waneenterprises.com/videos/livewire/127HORSE MEAT IS COMING TO YOUR MENUE
Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for... 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
-
-
Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the U.S. contains two hazardous ingredients—1,4-dioxane and quaternium-15—which are not found in the product sold to certain other countries. J&J’s “Naturals” brand also does not contain these ingredients, yet the company still claims they’re working on reformulating their Baby Shampoo “as quickly as we can safely and responsibly do so.”Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the U.S. contains two hazardous... more
-
-
This week, USDA was recognized at the 3rd Annual Feds Feed Families Closing Ceremony at the Pentagon. Employees around the country started over 2,000 food drives that led the department to contribute the most pounds per employee of any federal department or agency: almost 15 pounds per employee for a total of 1,791,393 pounds of food! USDA was also recognized for bringing in the most donations in the large division category and for donating the most pounds of food during the month of August. Thanks especially to our People’s Gardens around the country and employees’ innovative gleaning efforts, USDA recorded 1,397,475 pounds of food for the final month of the food drive.
Employees from every mission area and state participated and helped the department exceed the initial call to raise 500,000 pounds of food. Nearly 100 USDA employees were included on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Hall of Fame for making one-time donations of 250 pounds or more. And many more employees joined together to fill the shelves of food banks and pantries. This further demonstrates our employees’ dedication to caring and sharing in the communities they serve.
In total, 53 different federal departments and agencies participated in the food drive, leading to a grand total of 5,783,446 pounds of food donations. To break that number down further, that comes to about 64,000 pounds of food donations each day of the food drive. The federal government-wide goal for the summer was two million pounds of food, a goal that was exceeded nearly three-fold!
OPM Director John Berry thanked federal employees for their donations: “Feds Feed Families was a resounding success. This year’s goal was two million pounds and federal employees opened up their hearts to deliver an astounding record total of food items and other essentials. This is just one more reminder of the generosity of federal employees. Over the last few decades, federal employees have given billions of dollars to charity, and they always deliver when called to action. Thank you to every federal worker who donated.”
http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/10/13/usda-recognized-for-remarkable-efforts-at-the-feds-feed-families-closing-ceremony/#more-36187This week, USDA was recognized at the 3rd Annual Feds Feed Families Closing Ceremony... more
-
-
Today in the United States, by the simple act of feeding ourselves, we unwittingly participate in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings. Massive agro-chemical companies like Monsanto (Agent Orange) and Dow (Napalm) are feeding us genetically-modified food, GMO's, that have never been fully tested and aren't labeled. This small handful of corporations are tightening their grip on the world's food supply—buying, modifying, and patenting seeds to ensure total control over everything we eat.
The GMO Film Project (Untitled) tells the story of a father's discovery of GMO's through the symbolic act of poor Haitian farmers burning seeds in defiance of Monsanto's gift of 475 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to Haiti shortly after the devastating earthquake. After a journey to Haiti to learn why hungry farmers would burn seeds, the real awakening of what has happened to our food, what we are feeding our families, and what is at stake for the global food supply unfolds in a trip across the United States in search of answers.
Are we at a tipping point? Is it time to take back our food? The encroaching darkness of unknown health and environmental risks, seed take over, chemical toxins, and food monopoly meets with the light of a growing resistance of organic farmers, concerned citizens, and a burgeoning movement to take back what we have lost.
We still have time to heal the planet, feed the world, and live sustainably. But we have to start now.
A film by Compeller Pictures
gmofilm.com
Directed by Jeremy Seifert
Produced by Joshua Kunau
Co-Producer, Elizabeth Kucinich
Associate Producer, Timothy Vatterott
Cinematographer, Rod HasslerToday in the United States, by the simple act of feeding ourselves, we unwittingly... more
-
-
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
09/19/11 06:49 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Four people have died in an outbreak of listeria traced to Colorado cantaloupes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday.
One death occurred in Colorado, one in Oklahoma and two in New Mexico. The death count could soon rise to six. Chad Smelser of the New Mexico Department of Heath said the CDC is in the process of confirming two additional deaths linked to the outbreak in his state.
The CDC said that 35 people in 10 states have been sickened in the outbreak so far. The illnesses are in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia. Colorado has the most illnesses with 12 sickened, followed by Oklahoma with six and New Mexico with five.
The illnesses have been traced to fruit from Jensen Farms in Holly, Colo. The FDA said Monday that it had found listeria in samples of Jensen Farms' cantaloupe taken from a Denver-area store and on samples taken from equipment and cantaloupe at the farm's packing facility. Tests confirmed that the samples matched the strain of the disease found in those sickened.
(The entire article can be read @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/cantaloupe-deaths-colorado_n_970856.html)By MARY CLARE JALONICK
09/19/11 06:49 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Four people have... more
-
-
-
For the first time ever, more of the corn crop may go into gas tanks than into the stomachs of cattle and poultry destined for kitchen tables.
The prediction drew little response last week when it was released by the USDA in its Crop Production and Supply/Demand Report for the 2011 crop season. The USDA kept its prediction for ethanol production demand for corn at 5.05 billion, but lowered demand projections for livestock feed by 100 million bushels to 5 billion bushels.
That fuel now tops livestock as the primary user of corn struck at least one observer as noteworthy.
“That’s a first-time-ever type of change,” University of Missouri Extension economist Ron Plain said in a statement released by the university.
“For forever,” Plain said, “ feed was the largest single use of corn.”
The news comes as criticism that pro-ethanol subsidies and policies are raising food prices globally seems to be reaching a crescendo. Critics didn’t seem to latch onto the USDA’s market prediction, however.
more at link...
Don't forget poor 3rd world children who die because of this eco-fascist Ponzi scheme. I'm sure Monsanto is raking in the dough. Let's not forget, hemp and trash put through a plasma-enhanced melter can provide plenty of cheap clean fuel, lower food costs and eliminate the massive landfills and waste issues, but Al Gore and Goldman Sachs aren't invested in that, so you won't hear about it on this site.For the first time ever, more of the corn crop may go into gas tanks than into the... more
-
-
They’re Growing Nationally, but Federal Policies Favoring Industrial Agriculture Hold Them Back
Over the last several decades, thousands of farmers markets have been popping up in cities and towns across the country, benefiting local farmers, consumers and economies, but they could be doing a lot better, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). What’s holding farmers markets back? Federal policies that favor industrial agriculture at their expense.
“On the whole, farmers markets have seen exceptional growth, providing local communities with fresh food direct from the farm,” said Jeffrey O’Hara, the author of the report and an economist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “But our federal food policies are working against them. If the U.S. government diverted just a small amount of the massive subsidies it lavishes on industrial agriculture to support these markets and small local farmers, it would not only improve American diets, it would generate tens of thousands of new jobs.”
UCS released the report just a few days before the 12th annual U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Farmers Market Week, which starts on Sunday, August 7. According to the report, “Market Forces: Creating Jobs through Public Investment in Local and Regional Food Systems,” the number of farmers markets nationwide more than doubled between 2000 and 2010 jumping from 2,863 to 6,132, and now more than 100,000 farms sell food directly to local consumers.
All that growth happened with relatively little help. Last year, for example, the USDA spent $13.725 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster assistance payments mostly to support large industrial farms, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount the agency spent that year to support local and regional food system farmers? Less than $100 million, according to USDA data.
In 2007, the most recent USDA figure, direct agricultural product sales amounted to a $1.2 billion-a-year business, and most of that money recirculates locally. “The fact that farmers are selling directly to the people who live nearby means that sales revenue stays local,” O’Hara said. “That helps stabilize local economies.”
Keeping revenues local also can mean more job opportunities. Last summer, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked Congress to set a goal in the 2012 Farm Bill of helping at least 100,000 Americans to become farmers by, among other things, providing entrepreneurial training and support for farmers markets. O’Hara’s report takes up Vilsack’s challenge and argues that supporting local and regional food system expansion is central to meeting that goal.
In the report, O’Hara identified a number of initiatives the federal government could take to encourage new farmers and the growth of farmers markets in the upcoming Farm Bill. For example, the report called on Congress to:
•support the development of local food markets, including farmers markets and farm-to-school programs, which can stabilize community-supported markets and create permanent jobs. For example, the report found that the Farmers Market Promotion Program could create as many as 13,500 jobs nationally over a five-year period, if reauthorized, by providing modest funding for 100 to 500 farmers markets per year.
•level the playing field for farmers in rural regions by investing in infrastructure, such as meat-processing or dairy-bottling facilities, which would help meat, dairy and other farmers produce and market their products to consumers more efficiently. These investments could foster competition in food markets, increase product choice for consumers, and generate jobs in the community.
•allow low-income residents to redeem food nutrition subsidies at local food markets to help them afford fresh fruits and vegetables. Currently, not all markets are able to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
“Farmers at local markets are a new variety of innovative entrepreneurs, and we need to nurture them,” said O’Hara. “Supporting these farmers should be a Farm Bill priority.”
More at the link.They’re Growing Nationally, but Federal Policies Favoring Industrial Agriculture... more
-
-
Here is a document the USDA doesn't want you to see. It's what the agency calls a "technical review"—nothing more than a USDA-contracted researcher's simple, blunt summary of recent academic findings on the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant infections and their link with factory animal farms. The topic is a serious one. A single antibiotic-resistant pathogen, MRSA—just one of many now circulating among Americans—now claims more lives each year than AIDS.
Back in June, the USDA put the review up on its National Agricultural Library website. Soon after, a Dow Jones story quoted a USDA official who declared it to be based on "reputed, scientific, peer-reviewed, and scholarly journals." She added that the report should not be seen as a "representation of the official position of USDA." That's fair enough—the review was designed to sum up the state of science on antibiotic resistance and factory farms, not the USDA's position on the matter.
But around the same time, the agency added an odd disclaimer to the top of the document: "This review has not been peer reviewed. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture." And last Friday, the document (original link) vanished without comment from the agency's website. The only way to see the document now is through the above-linked cached version supplied to me by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
What gives? Why is the USDA suppressing a review that assembles research from "reputed, scientific, peer-reviewed, and scholarly journals"?
To understand the USDA's quashing of a report it had earlier commissioned, published, and praised, you first have to understand a key aspect of industrial-scale meat production. You see, keeping animals alive and growing fast under cramped, unsanitary conditions is tricky business. One of the industry's tried-and-true tactics is low-level, daily doses of antibiotics. The practice helps keep infections down, at least in the short term, and, for reasons no one really understands, it pushes animals to fatten to slaughter weight faster.
Altogether, the US meat industry uses 29 million pounds of antibiotics every year. To put that number in perspective, consider that we humans in the United States—in all of our prescription fill-ups and hospital stays combined—use just over 7 million pounds per year. Thus the vast bulk of antibiotics consumed in this country, some 80 percent, goes to factory animal farms.
For years, scientists have worried that the industry's reliance on antibiotics was contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. The European Union took action to curtail routine antibiotic use on farms in 2006 (taking Sweden's lead, which had banned the practice 20 years before).
But here in the United States, the regulatory approach has been completely laissez-faire—and the meat industry would like to keep it that way. The industry claims that even though antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found both in confined animals and supermarket meat, there's simply no evidence that livestock strains are jumping to the human population.
Here is where we get back to that now-you-see-it, now-you-don't USDA research summary, which reads like a heavily footnoted rebuttal to the industry line. Assembled by Vaishali Dharmarha, a research assistant at the University of Maryland, the report summarizes research from 63 academic papers and government studies. Here are few of her findings:
• "Use and misuse of antimicrobial drugs in food animal production and human medicine is the main factor accelerating antimicrobial resistance."
• "[F]ood animals, when exposed to antimicrobial agents, may serve as a significant reservoir of resistant bacteria that can transmit to humans through the food supply."
• "Several studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella showed that [antibiotic resistance] in Salmonella strains was most likely due to the antimicrobial use in food animals, and that most infections caused by resistant strains are acquired from the consumption of contaminated food."
• "Farmers and farm workers may get exposed to resistant bacteria by handling animals, feed, and manure. These exposures are of significant concern to public health, as they can transfer the resistant bacteria to family and community members, particularly through person-to-person contacts."
• "Resistant bacteria can also spread from intensive food animal production area to outside boundaries through contact between food animals and animals in the external environment. Insects, flies, houseflies, rodents, and wild birds play an important role in this mode of transmission. They are particularly attracted to animal wastes and feed sources from where they carry the resistant bacteria to several locations outside the animal production facility."
Naturally, such assertions didn't please the meat industry—and the fact that they were backed up by dozens of peer-reviewed science papers no doubt only sharpened the sting.
More at the link.Here is a document the USDA doesn't want you to see. It's what the agency... more
-
-
A new genetically engineered grass variant won’t be subject to federal regulation, because it was modified with a gene gun rather than bacteria, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
link:http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/usda-wont-regulate-genetically-modified-grass-spurring-superweed-worriesA new genetically engineered grass variant won’t be subject to federal... more
-
-
-
CNN...
No Writer's Credit (Including Amused Caption-Writer)...
CNN PHOTO CAPTION: These geese aren't cooked, but some of their kind will be fed to Pennsylvania needy as part of a geese control plan in New York.
June 16th, 2011
08:23 PM ET
The overpopulation of geese in New York City is going to help those in need in Pennsylvania this summer, according to a spokesman for the New York Department of Environmental Protection.
Last summer, 1,676 Canada geese were slaughtered in an effort to control the city's goose population and improve aviation safety, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. But this year, instead of being sent to landfills, the geese will be transported to Pennsylvania and used to feed the hungry there, DEP spokesman Farrell Sklerov said.
The USDA reached out to Pennsylvania on the city's behalf since New York state does not currently have a system in place to donate slaughtered geese to shelters, whereas Pennsylvania does. "It's something the city had always wanted to do, but there wasn't a process in place in New York," Sklerov said. "We're hopeful that by next year we should be able to feed people in New York."
For this year, the city will cover the cost of transporting the geese to Pennsylvania, where they will be processed and distributed to food banks, shelters, and other places that feed those in need, according to Sklerov.
The USDA started to control the geese population in New York three years ago after geese got into the engines of US Airways flight 1549, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing into the Hudson River.
"The city's main priority is the protection of the flying public, so if there are large pockets of geese near airports we will take the same steps as previously, but if we can use the geese for those in need, we thought it would be worthwhile to do so," Sklerov said.
Meanwhile, animal rights activists still oppose killing geese to control the population. In a statement, the ASPCA said, "The ASPCA strongly recommends a combination of non-lethal alternatives in order to prevent circumstances that call for the elimination of large populations of Canada geese." They did not comment specifically on the new plan to donate the geese to those in need.
According to the DEP, the USDA is conducting site surveys to determine where the geese are and how many there are around New York City this season.
.CNN...
No Writer's Credit (Including Amused Caption-Writer)...
CNN... more
-
