tagged w/ USDA
-
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
-
-
A group of leading scientists, economists and farmers is calling for a broad shift in federal policies to speed the development of farm practices that are more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable.
Writing in the journal Science, they say current policies focus on the production of a few crops and a minority of farmers while failing to address farming’s contribution to global warming, biodiversity loss, natural resource degradation, and public health problems.
“We have the technology and the science right now to grow food in sustainable ways, but we lack the policies and markets to make it happen,” says John Reganold, a Washington State University soil scientist and the Science paper’s lead author.
Starting in the late 1980s, Reganold pioneered several widely cited side-by-side comparisons showing organic farming systems were more earth-friendly than conventional systems while producing more nutritious and sometimes tastier food. His Science co-authors include more than a dozen other leading soil, plant, and animal scientists, economists, sociologists, agroecologists and farmers.
The Science paper grows out of several national efforts to address concerns about farming’s impact on the environment, including the landmark 1989 National Research Council report, Alternative Agriculture, which recommended greater research and education efforts into sustainable farming. All the authors of the Science paper wrote the council’s 2010 update, Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century.
The paper is particularly critical of the Farm Bill, which is slated for renewal next year. While only one-third of farmers receive payments under the bill, it has an outsized influence on production. It does little to promote sustainability, write the authors, while “distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health.” Environmental impacts, says Reganold, include overdrawn aquifers, eroded soil and polluted water.
Meanwhile, he says, agricultural research and the field of “agroecology,” which adapts the principles of nature to farming systems, are finding new ways to grow abundant and affordable food while protecting the environment, helping farm finances, and contributing to the well-being of farmers, farm workers and rural communities.
cont.A group of leading scientists, economists and farmers is calling for a broad shift in... more
-
-
Welcome to the GMO Report (formerly known as the Monsanto Roundup.) With these videos I hope to bring you information about GMO seeds and agriculture that you need to know to take action to protect your food, environment and health.
In this video I talk about Amazon deforestation for GM soy, activism against GM potatoes, global resistance, Glyphosate effects in the US, Monsanto's appeal gets dismissed, and their market decline.
Thanks for the support here, and always treasure the seed, the root of all life.Welcome to the GMO Report (formerly known as the Monsanto Roundup.) With these videos... more
-
-
At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO labelling on the ballot in California in 2012. This will hopefully be the beginning of a nationwide effort to do what Europe did years ago due to citizen action. Labelling GMOs in our food will give us a choice in what we purchase and what we consume. Of course, Monsanto and the biotech lobby have their money, big guns and political connections, but we the consumer have the power of the purse and the voices to drown them out and it is time we used them.
More at the link.At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO... more
-
-
http://politicsoftheplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/iStock_000006986740Small-300x199.jpg
Upholds Lower Court’s Rulings Requiring New USDA Approval Decision And Rigorous Review of the Crop’s Impacts
Litigation Over USDA’s Interim Approval of Planting Continues
Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order concluding a long-standing lawsuit over the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” sugar beets. As a result, previous court rulings in favor of farmers and conservation advocates will remain, including the order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a rigorous review of the impacts of GE sugar beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, before deciding whether to again allow their future commercial use.
Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell: “Today’s order cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food. Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.”
CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club, represented by CFS and Earthjustice, challenged the USDA approval in 2008. They argued that GE sugar beets would contaminate organic and non-GE farmers of related crops, such as table beets and chard, as well as increase pesticide impacts on the environment and worsen the current Roundup-resistant “superweeds” epidemic in U.S. agriculture. In September 2009, Judge Jeffrey S. White in the federal district court in San Francisco agreed, and ordered USDA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing these and other impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In August 2010, after a year of vigorous litigation over the proper remedy for USDA’s unlawful approval, the court again agreed with plaintiffs, threw out the USDA’s approval, and halting planting.
Monsanto and other biotech industry intervenors appealed on procedural grounds which, if granted, threatened to undo the earlier rulings. Today’s order dismissed that appeal and affirmed the lower court’s rulings.
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff: “Dismissal of the appeal confirms that the district court rightly concluded that in this case, as in every other case that has challenged USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered crops, the agency has flouted the law, favoring the interests of Monsanto over those of American people. With every court decision the need for fundamental reform in this area becomes ever more obvious.”
Remarkably, the EIS is only the second USDA has undertaken for any GE crop in over 15 years of approving such crops for human consumption. Both analyses were court-ordered. USDA said it expects to finish the GE sugar beets EIS and have a new decision on commercialization in 2012.
Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated. The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDA’s approval of the crop based on the agency’s failure to comply with environmental laws. That precedential ruling was also preserved by today’s order.http://politicsoftheplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/iStock_000006986740Small-300x1... more
-
-
Limited time free shipping: http://www.ecobold.com/products/1154-garlic-gold-gift-box
This organic vinaigrette Garlic Gold® is decadent garlic lover dream box, it has several gourmet items that are made with organic ingredients.
The Garlic Gold® gift box contains all USDA organic, gourmet condiments. This garlic dream box comes with:
1 bottle of Garlic Gold® Meyer Lemon Vinaigrette (250ml),
1 bottle of Garlic Gold® Oil (250ml),
1 bottle of Garlic Gold® Sea Salt Nuggets (2.3oz)
1 jar of Garlic Gold® (crunchy garlic nuggets in extra virgin olive oil - 3.75oz)
1 pour spout
I just had dinner and typing this post is making me hungry, my saliva production is speeding up, but that might be good because I won't have anything to drool when I sleep (TMI? Oh well, don't we all drool when we sleep?).
You can use these as an appetizer at a party, put in a pasta dish, salads, dips and even mix it with sour cream and serve with chips.
This can not only be given to yourself, it's also a great gift for chefs, family members, teachers, coaches, anniversaries, etc.
If you don't like garlic, here are some reasons why you should at least give it a second chance (after all we all deserve a second chance): A study by the University of Alabama at Birmingham showed that "the power to boost hydrogen sulfide production may help explain why a garlic-rich diet appears to protect against various cancers, including breast, prostate and colon cancer", say the study authors.
Enjoy and make sure to invite me over when you receive your heavenly organic garlic box!Limited time free shipping: http://www.ecobold.com/products/1154-garlic-gold-gift-box... more
-
-
On a slow Friday afternoon, a surprising bit of news came down the pike: Roger Beachy, head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the main research arm of the USDA, has officially resigned his post, effective May 20.
Who is Beachy? When Obama hired Beachy in 2009, I got a case of policy whiplash, because it seemed to me that the administration kept whipping back and forth between progressive food-system change and agribusiness as usual. Beachy, you see, came to the post from the Danforth Plant Science Center, where had he served as the organization's president since its founding in 1998. Nestled in Monsanto's St. Louis home town, Danforth has long and deep ties to Monsanto.
According to its website, the center "was founded in 1998 through gifts from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Fund (a philanthropic foundation), and a tax credit from the State of Missouri." Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant sits on the center's board of trustees, along with execs from defense giant McDonnell Douglas and pharma titan Merck. Another notable board member is Alfonso Romo, a Mexican magnate who cashed in big during his country's notoriously corrupt privatization /liberalization bonanza in the early '90s, and who sold Seminis, the globe's largest vegetable-seed company, to Monsanto in 2005. (Here's my account of that deal from the time.)
In his short stint at USDA, Beachy never hid his enthusiasm for ag biotechnology -- or his disdain for organic ag. When I met him at an agriculture conference in Mexico and asked him about funding for organic research, he came up with a novel slander against synthetics-free ag: "I'm concerned about the safety of organic food... I'm concerned about the issue of microbial contamination with organic." It was a strange encounter; I wrote about it here.
Beachy also hotly promoted GMOs, and thundered against organic, in a recent profile in Scientific American.
Now he has quit abruptly -- according to the USDA's internal announcement, posted on ScienceInsider, to "spend more time with his wife, his children, and his grandchildren" back in St. Louis. Be that as it may -- sometimes, no doubt, people actually do abruptly quit jobs to "spend more time with family" -- Beachy's exit coincides with news that NIFA's budget outlook has darkened considerably. Reports ScieceInsider:
This year's pot for competitive grants is down about 1%, a far cry from the 64% increase that the Obama Administration had requested for FY 2011. And reflecting larger fiscal realities, the department's request for FY 2012, submitted in February and still pending before Congress, was scaled back substantially, although still a robust 25% increase.
Meanwhile, the Danforth Center, where Beachy is still listed as a researcher, is going great guns. According to the April 14 St. Louis Today, "Researchers working to develop genetically modified, nutrient-dense cassava got another major boost Wednesday with an $8.3 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."On a slow Friday afternoon, a surprising bit of news came down the pike: Roger Beachy,... more
-
-
Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies as part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. And Monsanto isn't the only biotech company that will be permitted to police itself.
As it stands, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops. The agency has been lax about this, to say the least. In 2005, the USDA gave Monsanto the go-ahead to unleash its sugar beets before preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. This decision triggered a judge to rule that Monsanto sugar beet seedlings should be ripped from the ground.
Because the USDA is so bad at doing its job on time, the agency decided to see if anyone else was prepared to do its EIS work instead. And so it looks like the USDA will at least temporarily hand over environmental impact responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops. The pilot program will allow these companies to conduct their own environmental assessments of crops or outsource the work to contractors.
The USDA won't actually admit that it's bad at performing its duties--instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective, according to the Federal Register (PDF). No knock on Monsanto, which is surely made up of great, honest people, but if the company has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn't it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn't its hired contractors do the same? If this wasn't so dangerous, it would be funny.
cont.Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be... more
-
-
Immense thanks to "misti," who brought to my attention this article, which I'd like to now copy and paste right here, so you all can see it...
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/07/how-to-remove-radioactive-iodine-131-from-drinking-water/
Jeff McMahon
The Ingenuity of the Commons
How To Remove Radioactive Iodine-131 From Drinking Water
Apr. 7 2011 - 9:03 am
IPhoto: mage of a water drop - Photo by spettacolopuro via flickr
The Environmental Protection Agency recommends reverse osmosis water treatment to remove radioactive isotopes that emit beta-particle radiation. But iodine-131, a beta emitter, is typically present in water as a dissolved gas, and reverse osmosis is known to be ineffective at capturing gases.
A combination of technologies, however, may remove most or all of the iodine-131 that finds its way into tap water, all available in consumer products for home water treatment.
First, the standard disclaimers: Every government agency involved in radiation monitoring—the EPA, FDA, USDA, NRC, CDC, etc.—has stressed that the radiation now reaching the United States has been found at levels thousands of times lower than standards of health concern. When it found iodine-131 in drinking water samples from Boise, Idaho and Richland, Washington this weekend, the EPA declared:
An infant would have to drink almost 7,000 liters of this water to receive a radiation dose equivalent to a day’s worth of the natural background radiation exposure we experience continuously from natural sources of radioactivity in our environment.”
But not everyone accepts the government’s reassurances. Notably, Physicians for Social Responsibility has insisted there is no safe level of exposure to radionuclides, regardless of the fact that we encounter them naturally:
There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”
via Physicians for Social Responsibility, psr.org
No matter where you stand on that debate, you might be someone who simply prefers not to ingest anything that escaped from a damaged nuclear reactor. If so, here’s what we know:
Reverse Osmosis
The EPA recommends reverse osmosis water treatment for most kinds of radioactive particles. Iodine-131 emits a small amount of gamma radiation but much larger amounts of beta radiation, and so is considered a beta emitter:
Reverse osmosis has been identified by EPA as a “best available technology” (BAT) and Small System Compliance Technology (SSCT) for uranium, radium, gross alpha, and beta particles and photon emitters. It can remove up to 99 percent of these radionuclides, as well as many other contaminants (e.g., arsenic, nitrate, and microbial contaminants). Reverse osmosis units can be automated and compact making them appropriate for small systems.
via EPA, Radionuclides in Drinking Water
However, EPA designed its recommendations for the contaminants typically found in municipal water systems, so it doesn’t specify Iodine-131 by name. The same document goes on to say, “Reverse osmosis does not remove gaseous contaminants such as carbon dioxide and radon.”
Iodine-131 escapes from damaged nuclear plants as a gas, and this is why it disperses so quickly through the atmosphere. It is captured as a gas in atmospheric water, falls to the earth in rain and enters the water supply.
This is what happened in Boise, Idaho, where iodine-131 was found in rainwater samples last week and then in drinking water samples a few days later.
Reverse osmosis works by forcing water through material with very tiny pores—as tiny as .0001 microns—so that almost nothing except water emerges on the other side. Almost nothing.
“Dissolved gases and materials that readily turn into gases also can easily pass through most reverse osmosis membranes,” according to the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. For this reason, “many reverse osmosis units have an activated carbon unit to remove or reduce the concentration of most organic compounds.”
Activated Carbon
That raises the next question: does activated carbon remove iodine-131? There is some evidence that it does. Scientists have used activated carbon to remove iodine-131 from the liquid fuel for nuclear solution reactors. And Carbon air filtration is used by employees of Perkin Elmer, a leading environmental monitoring and health safety firm, when they work with iodine-131 in closed quarters. At least one university has adopted Perkin Elmer’s procedures.
Activated carbon works by absorbing contaminants, and fixing them, as water passes through it. It has a disadvantage, however: it eventually reaches a load capacity and ceases to absorb new contaminants.
Ion Exchange
The EPA also recommends ion exchange for removing radioactive compounds from drinking water. The process used in water softeners, ion exchange removes contaminants when water passes through resins that contain sodium ions. The sodium ions readily exchange with contaminants.
Ion exchange is particularly recommended for removing Cesium-137, which has been found in rain samples in the U.S., but not yet in drinking water here. Some resins have been specifically designed for capturing Cesium-137, and ion exchange was used to clean up legacy nuclear waste from an old reactor at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site.
Triple Threat
The best solution may be the one used routinely to treat water at the Savannah River Site. The process combines activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange. If one doesn’t get the iodine-131, two others have a chance to capture the radiation through other means.
And that may be the best solution for the average drinker of tap water as well.
Vegetable Contamination
Once you have access to cleaned water, be sure to use it to wash your vegetables. The FDA has not yet begun monitoring U.S. produce for radiation because, the agency says, there is not yet a radiation threat here. The Chinese have been monitoring vegetables, and they’ve urged their citizens to wash their spinach:
The Ministry of Health also issued a statement Wednesday evening saying trace levels of radioactive isotope iodine-131 had been found in spinach planted in the open fields within the three regions.
It is has been proven that washing the spinach with water can effectively remove radioactive materials, the Health Ministry said.
It is believed that recent rains in these regions helped drop the radioactive iodine from the air to the ground, and the radioactive materials fell onto the surface of the spinach, the ministry said.”
via XinhuaImmense thanks to "misti," who brought to my attention this article, which... more
-
-
By downloading ShopSavvy, a free smartphone application, consumers can scan the GS1 barcode and instantly link with the grower’s profile, website, production practices and a map of the farm -- right at the point of purchase.
http://www.thegrower.org/readnews.php?id=7p1t2o4x6k5tBy downloading ShopSavvy, a free smartphone application, consumers can scan the GS1... more
-
-
Monsanto is at the core of a rotten corporate GM apple that is literally poisoning the world. Natural News recently covered the allegations from India that Monsanto conducted GM corn trials without approval. This is just the tip of the iceberg in a laundry list of abuses that we have covered on our own site in four recent key articles:
Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers
The Agribusiness Juggernaut; Assault on Nature
A Perfect Storm of GMO's, Chemicals, and Cancer
Scientists Warn Of Link Between New Pathogen and Monsanto's Roundup
Countries in Latin America and across Europe have been doing their best to resist the Monsanto invasion. Finally, people are ready to take to the streets in America to publically denounce the practices of the leader of Big Ag.
As Salem-News correctly points out in their announcement of the demonstrations: "Gandhi got his country to reject the products of the British empire. GMOs and vaccines are central products of this empire and each are also bioweapons.
This issue is one that goes beyond left-right divided politics and hits the central nerve of all of us -- our freedom to make informed decisions about the health of our families. So, whether you are a farmer or consumer, it's time to get off the sidelines and become active.
For those who might be unfamiliar with the long history of Monsanto atrocities and the need to march against them, please watch the free film: The World According to Monsanto
Here is the schedule of demonstrations:
MAIN EVENT: Washington, D.C., 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, The White House Sidewalk (The White House Sidewalk is the sidewalk between East and West Executive Avenues on the South side of Pennsylvania Avenue NW) 11am- 3pm
Dates for ALL locations is Saturday March 26, 2011 and include (alphabetically):
Ann Arbor MI, Southeast corner of Catherine Street and N. 4th Avenue, just south of the A2 Farmers Market and Kerrytown Shops 12pm – 3pm
Albuquerque NM, UNM 12pm - 3pm
Atlanta GA, Around Centennial Olympic Park across from the CNN Bldg. 11am - 4pm
Austin TX, at The Capitol 12pm - 3pm
New York City, City Hall steps, between Broadway and Park Row 12pm - 1pm
Colorado Springs CO, Acacia Park 11am - 1:30pm
Hollywood FL, Open Air Bandshell Theatre on Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, 100 Johnson Street and North Ocean Drive/A1A 11am - 2pm
Indianapolis IN, 200 W. Washington Street #220 12pm - 2pm
Kansas City MO, The Plaza Downtown Kansas City 11am - 3pm
LA CA, Los Angeles (Westwood) Federal Bldg, 11000 Wilshire Blvd. 11am - 2pm
Maui HI, in front of Long's streetside on Ka'ahumanu Ave in Kahului 8am - 11am
Milwaukee WI, Water and Wisconsin 11am - 2pm
Montpelier VT, Outside CITY HALL 11am - 3pm
Nashville TN, Nashville Farmers Market, 900 Rosa Parks Boulevard (Eighth Avenue North) 10am - 1pm
Queen Creek AZ, Safeway Food Store, Queen Creek, Arizona East valley Power and Queen Creek road 12pm - 1pm
Saint Paul MN, Minnesota State Capitol Building - South Mall, 75 Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd 12pm - 2pm
Salem OR, 900 Court St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97301 12pm - 3pm
Seattle WA, Westlake Park 12pm - 2pm
Tampa Bay FL, Downtown 11am - 2pmb
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/join-millions-against-monsanto-this.html#moreMonsanto is at the core of a rotten corporate GM apple that is literally poisoning the... more
-
-
Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.
This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":
"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."
This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.
____
This is from a paper written in 1997:
John Fagan, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management
"The concept of substantial equivalence has been used in Europe, North America, and elsewhere around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods. For instance, European Commission (EC) regulations concerning novel foods and food ingredients apply the concept of substantial equivalence to both the safety testing and to the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are spared from extensive safety testing on the assumption that they are no more dangerous than the corresponding non-genetically engineered food (1). Using similar arguments, genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are not required to be labeled as genetically engineered (2). The effect of these regulations has been to allow genetically engineered foods to enter the market place without sufficient testing to assure safety and without sufficient labeling to allow consumers to de cide for themselves whether or not to purchase and eat these novel foods. The health of the population of Europe is thus being placed at risk.
The fundamental inadequacies of this approach have been discussed previously. For instance, one article presented in the Proceedings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Food Safety Evaluation (3), came to the following conclusions: (1) Because the concept of substantial equivalence has no dimensions, it cannot be used as a predictor of which novel foods will require substantial safety testing in animals. (2) Depending on the nature of the novel food, the usefulness of the concept of substantial equivalence in determining the necessity for extensive safety testing ranges from useful to negligible. (3) The number and range of safety tests required is best determined, not by the concept of substantial equivalence, but by the nature of the product under consideration.
At first glance the term substantially equivalent implies that two foods are equivalent in all characteristics that are of importance to the consumer-safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture. However, in actual practice the investigator compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If that relatively restricted set of characteristics is not found to be significantly different in these two, the genetically engineered food is classified as substantially equivalent to the corresponding non-genetically engineered food and is required to be neither tested further nor labeled as genetically engineered.
The argument supporting this practice is that since most of the characteristics of a particular genetically engineered food are similar to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it must be the case that the genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to its non-genetically engineered counterpart with respect to all characteristics relevant to the consumer. This is obviously a fallacious argument, and should not be used as the basis for avoiding more extensive testing and for avoiding the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Most critically, if characteristics important to food safety are not evaluated directly, the safety of consumers will be in jeopardy."
end of excerpt.
____
continued at the link.
Thank you for supporting this blog and for helping me get out this important information.Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the... more
-
-
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
As the Great Blizzard of 2010 blanketed New York City, most residents were blissfully unaware that their city’s 911 system was on the brink of collapse. The system fielded 50,000 calls in a single day, and at one point the backlog swelled to 1,300 calls. The mayor was called to account for the slow service and promised that it wouldn’t happen again.
But David Rosen and Bruce Kushnick report in AlterNet that New York’s close call is an example of a much broader and deeper problem. Cash-strapped state and local governments are raiding funds set aside for 911 service, and the system is hurting badly:
Hundreds of millions of dollars are collected annually by states and localities to support 911 services and much of it is diverted to plug state budget holes and meet a host of other demands. Most disturbing, 911 services are technologically bankrupt, held together by duct-tape and workarounds.
States siphoned nearly $400 million earmarked for 911 between 2001 and 2004. The law demands that the money, raised by a tax on every phone line, has to be set aside for 911-related services. Some states fudge the definition of “911-related” to fund things that had nothing to do with emergency services, like raises for courthouse staffers. Others just brazenly redirected the money into their general funds. New York collected $82.1 million in 911 taxes on phone lines in 2007, but only 19 cents out of the $1.20 monthly fee was spent on 911.
At least New York can account for its misdirected funds. South Dakota simply has no idea where its 911 money went, Rosen and Kushnick report.
Walker: Hurry up and die
Seemingly determined to cast himself as a Dickensian villain, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker presented a budget last week that would slash millions in funding for health care for the poor and the elderly. However, as I reported in Working in These Times, Walker recommended an increase in funding for a program that buries Wisconsinites who die destitute.
Medicaid roulette
Some governors are clamoring for more control over Medicaid, the joint state/federal health insurance program for the poor, Suzy Khimm reports for Mother Jones. Currently, Medicaid funding is allocated primarily by a matching system, with the federal government kicking in a certain number of dollars for every dollar the state spends. The states must abide by federal rules in order to qualify. Now, some Republican governors want to see Medicaid funding doled out in block grants. The states would get a fixed amount of money, which they could spend as they saw fit.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth highest-ranking Republican in the House, is a leading proponent of this new scheme. She claims it would increase “flexibility” for states. In this case, flexibility is a euphemism for “massive cuts.” Washington’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, has already convinced the Obama administration to exempt her state from certain Medicaid rules. McMorris Rodgers applauds the move.
Crisis Propaganda Centers
New York City City passed a landmark “truth in advertising” bill last Wednesday that would force so-called crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to disclose that they are not health care facilities. CPCs are anti-choice ministries posing as reproductive health clinics. Among other things, the law will require city CPCs to inform potential clients that they do not refer for abortions or emergency contraception, Noelle Williams reports for the Ms. Magazine blog.
The logic of our sex laws
The cover story of this month’s Washington Monthly is a provocative analysis of Dan Savage, America’s most influential sex advice columnist, as an ethicist of contemporary sexual mores. The author, Benjamin J. Dueholm, is a Lutheran pastor and a longtime fan of Savage’s syndicated column “Savage Love.” Dueholm does a good job of summarizing some of the core principles of Savage’s ethos: disclosure, autonomy, mutual pleasure, and personal commitment to achieving sexual competence. His central critique is that Savage’s attitude is too consumerist and businesslike.
I would argue that there’s nothing inherently capitalist about Savage’s ethics. Yes, Savage’s ideal sexual world is based on consensual, mutually beneficial exchanges, like an idealized free market–but that doesn’t mean that realizing one’s sexual identity, or finding true love, is on par with picking a brand of laundry detergent. In consumerism, the customer is always right. Savage is constantly urging his readers to be active participants in a mutually satisfying sex life, not passive consumers who expect their partners to cater to them without giving anything in return.
USDA hearts Michael Pollan
Every five years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issues guidelines for healthy eating. Parke Wilde of Grist explains why this year’s edition is, in many ways, a radical and surprising document:
The new edition has a fascinating chapter on eating patterns, focusing on real foods and not just nutrients. This chapter on eating patterns provides a nice counterpoint to the reductionism — what Michael Pollan calls “nutritionism” — of scientific discussion of diet and health. The guidelines’ healthy eating patterns may or may not include meat. For example, the USDA Food Patterns and the DASH diet each include moderate amounts of meat and plenty of low-fat dairy. At the same time, the guidelines explain clearly that meat is not essential, and near-vegetarian and vegetarian diets are adequate and even “have been associated with improved health outcomes.”
This is a big departure for an agency that has historically been criticized for acting as a propaganda outlet for the livestock and dairy industries. But Wilde notes that, despite its enlightened discussion of the perils of “nutritionism,” the USDA hasn’t broken the habit of referring to nutrients rather than foods. The guidelines still recommend that Americans eat less saturated fat, without dwelling at length on which foods actually contribute most of the saturated fat to the American diet.
As nutritionist Marion Nestle explains in her seminal book, Food Politics, this mealy-mouthed advice is measured to avoid offending any lobby group that might take offense at the suggestion that Americans eat less of their product. There is no saturated fat lobby, but there are plenty of lobby groups representing the interests of industries tied to the major sources of saturated fat in the American diet, which include cheese, pizza, bakery products, ice cream, chicken, and burgers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
As the Great Blizzard of 2010... more
-
-
-
Another year begins of holding biotech and Monsanto and friends accountable for what they are unleashing on our planet in the way of GMOs and their effect on our environment, biodiversity, climate, and health. In this edition I go over a couple of recent events regarding pathogens, ethanol GMO corn and GM cultivation in Europe.
Hope you get information and awareness from these reports and feel free to add to them in the thread. If you wish to see any other RoundUps click on the tag below.
Thanks,
Jan
Sustainable Agriculture GroupAnother year begins of holding biotech and Monsanto and friends accountable for what... more
-
-
Breakfast cereals, including corn flakes, bread and snacks are under threat after the US authorities approved the growing of a new GM maize.
The warning is significant because it comes from the North American Millers' Association, a food industry trade body, rather than green campaigners.
The new maize or corn has been genetically modified to be used to create ethanol, which is being promoted as a substitute for petrol.
However, wheat growers, food companies and millers in America, fear that food crops will become contaminated with the GM maize, which has been developed by biotech company Syngenta.
They say that changes made to the corn would taint any food products that it gets into.
The US Department for Agriculture (USDA) has allowed the growing of Sungenta's 3272 Amylase Corn without water-tight controls to ensure it is kept separate from food crops.
Once the crop is grown on a large scale in the US, there is every chance it will become mixed with food standard corn and be exported around the world, including the UK.
The issue turns the spotlight on the attitude of the British Government and the beleagued Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to GM crops.
Britain is currently lobbying within the EU to allow crops tainted with low levels of non-approved GM varieties to be imported from other parts of the world.
The Millers' Association said it was 'disappointed' the GM corn had been approved without conditions.
It warned: 'Syngenta's own scientific data released last month shows if this corn is co-mingled with other corn, it will have significant adverse impacts on food product quality and performance.'
Association president, Mary Waters, said: 'USDA has failed to provide the public with sufficient scientific data on the economic impacts of contamination on food production.'
The corn contains a powerful enzyme that breaks down the starch inside the plant, which is a cost saving function for ethanol production.
The association said that it if were to enter the food processing stream, the same function that benefits ethanol production will damage the quality of food products like breakfast cereals, snack foods, and battered products.
The concerns are all the more important because the association is a well-known supporter of GM crops and food.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1359109/GM-cornflakes-Fears-U-S-approve-new-engineered-maize.html#ixzz1EeCgSJo1
cont.Breakfast cereals, including corn flakes, bread and snacks are under threat after the... more
-
